Moving Heroic Horizontal everyday Management

fo

r a

ll

t

ho

se

w

ho

b

el

ie

ve

in

e

xc

el

le

nc

e • p

ou

r c

eu

x e

t c

el

le

s q

ui c

ro

ie

nt

e

n l

'e

xc

el

le

nc

e

Horizontal Management

Moving from

the Heroic to the everyday

Lessons Learned fromLeading Horizontal Projects

CCMD Roundtable

on the Management

of Horizontal

Initiatives

chaired by

James Lahey

byMark Hopkins Chantal CoutureElizabeth Moore

Canadian Centre for Management Development

Centre canadien de gestion

CCMD Roundtable

on the Management

of Horizontal

Initiatives

chaired by

James Lahey

byMark Hopkins Chantal CoutureElizabeth Moore

fo

r a

ll

t

ho

se

w

ho

b

el

ie

ve

in

e

xc

el

le

nc

e • p

ou

r c

eu

x e

t c

el

le

s q

ui c

ro

ie

nt

e

n l

’e

xc

el

le

nc

e

Horizontal Management

Moving from

the Heroic to the everyday

Lessons Learned fromLeading Horizontal Projects

ii Moving from the Heroic to the everyday

For more information or copies,

please contact the Strategic Research and Planning Group of the


Phone: (613) 947-3682

Fax: (613) 992-1736

The opinions expressed are those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect the views of the


© Canadian Centre for Management Development

National Library of Canada cataloguing in publication data

Main entry under title:

Moving from the heroic to the everyday: lessons learned from leading

horizontal projects

Text in English and French on inverted pages.

Title on added t.p.: De l’effort héroïque au travail quotidien, les enseignements

découlant de la direction de projets horizontaux.

“CCMD’s Action-Research Roundtable on the Management of

Horizontal Issues, chaired by James Lahey”

ISBN 0-662-65650-4

Cat. No. SC94-81/2001

1. Interactive management.

2. Decentralization in management.

3. Public administration -- Canada.

I. Couture, Chantal.

II. Canadian Centre for Management Development.

III. Title.

IV. Title: De l’effort héroïque au travait quotidien, les enseignements découlant

de la direction de projets horizontaux.

JL75.M68 2001 352.3 C2001-980106-8E

A Word from CCMD

The Public Service of Canada is evolving at an ever-quickening pace and research is needed to

address the issues and challenges public servants face daily. In consultation with managers,

CCMD identified four issues of immediate and critical concern and launched four Action-

Research Roundtables:

• Implementation of the Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA)

• Building the learning organization

• Managing horizontal issues

• Risk management

This report has been released by the Action-Research Roundtable on the Management of

Horizontal Initiatives. The objectives of this project were to review initiatives and research

undertaken to date, to identify lessons learned, and to provide practical guidance for managers

on the how and the when of effective horizontal management. This document, and the other

products of this roundtable, not only fulfill this mandate but go beyond it.

The range of documents that have been generated by or for the roundtable include a literature

review and papers on the topics of regional councils, accountability and trends in governance,

and how to undertake dialogues on the management of horizontal issues (see CCMD’s website

www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca for these documents).

I would like to thank the Chair, Jim Lahey, Associate Deputy Minister, Human Resources

Development Canada. The depth and richness of this project is attributable to his committed and

insightful leadership. The roundtable members also made immense contributions, volunteering

their time and sharing their experiences, insights and wisdom. I would also like to thank the

nearly 200 people who took part in satellite events that helped broaden and deepen the work of

the roundtable. Finally, for their capable support, I would like to thank Geoff Dinsdale,

coordinator of the Roundtables and the members of the roundtable secretariat, Chantal Couture,

Nathalie Burlone, Elizabeth Moore, and Peter Stoyko.

Jocelyne Bourgon

President,

Canadian Centre for

Management Development

Lessons Learned from Leading Horizontal Projects iii

iv Moving from the Heroic to the everyday

Lessons Learned from Leading Horizontal Projects v

Preface

For some time now, public service managers have recognized that working across organizational

boundaries is basic to much of what they do. Simply stated, horizontal management is necessary

in more and more cases in order to get the job done. Without this type of collaboration, it is

difficult to imagine management of crosscutting policy issues or the delivery of service to

citizens in ways that make sense to them.

There is a feeling, however, that managing horizontally is still at a pioneering stage. Too often it

depends on heroic individual effort. Too frequently it seems managers must overcome obstacles

that the “system” could reduce or eliminate. Our knowledge still has too many gaps. And what

we know collectively is too difficult to access.

The impetus for setting up a roundtable on horizontal management was the desire to capture

and make what we do know more readily available. By bringing together public service

practitioners, academics and others, we aimed to distil the “state of the art.”

We were impressed by the enthusiasm and the sheer number of those wanting to participate.

The process expanded to accommodate. Apart from six regular meetings of the Roundtable, we

organized five special “satellite” events to embrace a broader array of experience. In the end,

nearly 200 people shared their insights with us.

Without exception, the exchanges were intense and informative. But how to convey the energy

and richness of these discussions? No “ten steps to success” or checklist could accomplish this.

This document offers a summary of what we learned, drawing heavily on the cases we reviewed.

It is supplemented by an annotated bibliography, case studies, and other materials that are

available on the Internet at www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca .

The art and practice of managing horizontally is still very much in development. We hope this

document will help you push back the frontiers.

My thanks to the many people who contributed their time and wisdom, and to the Canadian

Centre for Management Development for sponsoring our work.

James Lahey

Chair, CCMD Action-Research Roundtable

on the Management of Horizontal Initiatives

Acknowledgements

CCMD ROUNDTABLE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF HORIZONTAL INITIATIVES

Chair James Lahey, Human Resources Development Canada

Members

Margaret Amoroso The Leadership Network

Laura A. Chapman Policy Research Initiative

Mary E. Dawson, Q.C. Justice Canada

Brian Dick Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Denis Gauthier Health Canada

Mark Hopkins Human Resources Development Canada

Liseanne Forand Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Jean-Pierre Gauthier Environment Canada

Karen Jackson Canadian Policy Research Networks

Doug Maley Human Resources Development Canada

Lucie McClung Privy Council Office

Evert Lindquist University of Victoria

Kathryn E. McCallion Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Robert W. Slater Environment Canada

Sharon Sutherland Queen’s University

Diane Vincent Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Carol Swan Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Michael Wernick Canadian Heritage

Secretariat Geoff Dinsdale (Coordinator, CCMD’s action-research roundtables)

Chantal Couture (Management Trainee, Environment Canada)

Elizabeth Moore (Ph.D. student, University of Toronto)

Nathalie Burlone (Ph.D. student, École Nationale de l’Administration Publique)

Peter Stoyko (Carleton University)

The Roundtable members would like to thank the many individuals who contributed to the development

of this report. This includes resource people, satellite event organizers and attendees, focus test

participants, and the people who carried out the publication process. These individuals helped ensure this

report is readable, relevant and useful for public servants across the country.

vi Moving from the Heroic to the everyday

Lessons Learned from Leading Horizontal Projects vii

Summary

I. The Nature of Horizontal Management

• Horizontal management is about working collaboratively across organizational boundaries.

➢ There are no hard and fast rules to horizontal management — it is an art more than

a science.

This type of management is pervasive, occurring at every level in an organization. It

involves bringing people from diverse organizational and occupational backgrounds

together into teams and networks with a common purpose and shared culture.

➢ Horizontal management is a valuable tool, but it is not relevant in all circumstances and

it comes with risks. These risks include encouraging “group think,” cutting lines of

accountability and authority, and pursuing consensus at the expense of serving the

public interest.

• Several important themes emerged out of the Roundtable’s discussions and research.

➢ Leadership that marshals the powers of influence and persuasion is the key driver. It is

best exercised through dialogue, with an emphasis on active listening.

➢ A culture that values collaboration and trust among partners is essential.

➢ Horizontal initiatives have a life cycle that makes timing crucial. Continual reflection and

adjustment are required to maintain momentum.

➢ Managers of horizontal initiatives need to maintain contact with vertical structures for

the sake of securing accountability, authority and resources.

➢ Support systems (knowledge bases, resource allocations, and the like) too often work

against horizontal management and need to be adapted.

II. Key Dimensions of Horizontal Management

• The Roundtable explored four key dimensions of horizontal management:

1. Mobilizing Teams and Networks — The ability to mobilize teams and networks is crucial to

getting an initiative off the ground, especially in the face of entrenched interests. Several

things promote mobilization:

➢ Leadership makes all the difference. While getting started may require one or two people

to take on the main responsibility, leadership works best when shared, shifting from

person to person depending on circumstances and personal strengths. Dialogue and

persuasion are the key methods of identifying opportunities and resolving conflicts.

viii Moving from the Heroic to the everyday

➢ Teamwork makes a horizontal partnership cohesive. Early and open engagement gives

people a sense of collective ownership. Rewards and recognition provide an incentive to

cooperate. A broad and inclusive network of stakeholders and third parties creates buy-in.

➢ Shared mental models and vocabularies help give an initiative a working culture.

➢ Trust is the glue that holds an initiative together. Building credibility, investing in

relationships, openness, and continual dialogue promote trust. Small undertakings can

create a positive climate for risking more together.

2. Developing Shared Frameworks — Developing a shared framework helps to ensure that

everyone is working towards the same goals.

➢ A shared understanding of the key issues must be internalized. A shared fact base,

dialogue and patience are required to accomplish this.

➢ Clarity about shared goals and results, as well as roles and responsibilities, can promote

effective accountability. It may be necessary, however, for these elements to evolve so that

the initiative can adapt to changing circumstances and new opportunities.

➢ There is a tension between individual accountability and a shared sense of purpose and

responsibility. It is important to acknowledge and manage this tension.

➢ Planning and reporting serve the purposes of accountability, communications, and

providing discipline to an initiative.

3. Building Supportive Structures — A variety of supportive structures can be used to help

managers build lasting relationships and achievements. Informal structures are less resource

intensive, more flexible, and less binding on members (e.g., communities of practice). Formal

structures are resource intensive but less ambiguous; they require some logistical skill and

expertise to implement (e.g., agencies).

➢ Managers need to reflect carefully on the appropriateness of the many structures

available. They do not have to be rigid, bricks-and-mortar structures.

➢ Timing is also crucial, for structures erected too soon can undermine the development of

a shared culture. Too much formality early in an initiative can dampen motivation, but

leaving the creation of support structures too late can undermine the resilience of an

initiative. The choice of structure often depends on the stage of an initiative’s

development.

➢ When information is shared to facilitate coordination, informal structures help promote

frequent and open conversation. Formal structures, in contrast, are often required to

secure quality and consistency of documents and data.

➢ When sharing resources to create new capabilities, the choice of structure often depends

on the amount of resources being shared and the length of a sharing arrangement.

Large-scale and longer-term movement and sharing of resources have to be documented

and accounted for formally.

➢ When sharing authority or making important decisions that cut across mandated

authority, formal structures are required.

➢ Even when an initiative has a concrete end-point, structures should be designed to

facilitate longer-term relationship building.

4. Maintaining Momentum — Initiatives have ups and downs, meaning that managers must

work actively to maintain momentum. Leadership is important to motivate the key players,

channel information to keep everyone engaged, and make working horizontally routine.

➢ An outside champion can give an initiative someone to keep things on track and to

connect with vertical structures.

➢ Building on small successes demonstrates viability and motivates partners. It is

important to set milestones, give successes visibility, and demonstrate progress and

results.

➢ A horizontal arrangement can undergo several transitions during its life cycle. Managers

can influence timing by keeping all the partners focused on key goals while remaining

flexible in response to changes within the environment and to emerging opportunities.

➢ Continuous learning is required in order to reflect on experiences and push the initiative

forward.

➢ While money can improve capability, too much money too early in the process can hinder

individual initiative and prevent people from innovating.

➢ Deadlines help practitioners develop a common schedule and manage workloads

effectively.

Lessons Learned from Leading Horizontal Projects ix

x Moving from the Heroic to the everyday

1Chapter

2Chapter

3Chapter

4Chapter

A Word from the Canadian Centre for Management Development . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Mobilizing Teams and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Developing a Shared Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Building Supportive Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Maintaining Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix 1: Overview of Case Studies and Case Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix 2: Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix 3: An Accountability Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Appendix 4: Horizontal Management Mechanisms of the Federal Government 53

Appendix 5: Activities of the Roundtable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table of Contents

xii Moving from the Heroic to the everyday

Lessons Learned from Leading Horizontal Projects 1

Introduction

Advancing Our Knowledge of Horizontal Management

There are three key gaps in our knowledge base when it comes to managing horizontal

initiatives:

• There is a need to distil practical advice. A lot has been written on the value and importance

of horizontal management. But little in the way of practical advice is available. In the words

of one participant: “A lot of work has been done — but it falls down at the practical level.”

• There is a need to share real experiences. The numerous on-the-ground successes of the past

five to ten years have not been captured. As one participant said: “People are not aware of

what horizontal initiatives are underway. We are missing exchanges with others.” To this end

we decided to ground this project in real experiences and to capture the flavour of the words

of public servants as they described their own experiences and perceptions.

• There is a need to acknowledge the continuing real-world difficulties of managing

horizontally and to address the concrete institutional and cultural obstacles to improving

horizontal management.

Drawing from Many Experiences and Sources

This report builds upon the ground set out by the 1996 Deputy Ministers’ Task Force report on

Managing Horizontal Policy Issues, and moves beyond horizontal policy issues to focus on a wider

range of horizontal issues. It is also rooted in the experiences and lessons learned of managers.

The many quotes you will encounter as you read through this document are drawn from case

studies, as well as from discussions at Roundtable meetings and special “satellite” events (see

Appendix 5 for more information about the satellite events).

The following case studies are highlighted throughout this document (see Appendix 1 for case

summaries, and contact information):

• Service (Team Canada Inc, Joint Economic Development Initiative, Rural Team New Bruswick);

• Research (Policy Research Initiative, Science and Technology Memorandum of Understanding);

• Policy (Urban Aboriginal Strategy, National Children’s Agenda, Oceans Act, Voluntary Sector

Task Force, Canadian Magazine Policy, Medium-Term and Transition Planning);

• Internal support (e.g., The Leadership Network, federal regional councils);

• Emergencies (e.g., the Swissair disaster);

• Multi-facetted projects (The St. Lawrence Action Plan, Oceans Act, Natural Resources Canada

(NRCan) Regional Lens Approach).

Many of these case studies, as well as other resources generated by and for the Roundtable, are

available on the Canadian Centre for Management Development’s Web site at www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca.

2 Moving from the Heroic to the everyday

Horizontal Management Is About Managing Networks

Horizontal management is about more than interdepartmental cooperation. Horizontal

initiatives often involve provincial and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), community groups and leaders, academics, and the international community. The

essence of horizontal management was described by one participant as the challenge of

“bringing diverse people together and lining up authorities in a complementary way to achieve a

common purpose.” Sometimes a team is the right concept — where tightly cohesive purposes

and culture were developed — as in the case of Team Canada Inc., for example. In other cases the

core team forms the hub of a wider network of participants, as in the case of the St. Lawrence

Action Plan, which had to engage a huge number of users over a wide geographic area:

[Working horizontally] means being able to work in teams and networks across organizational

silos; to think and act corporately . . . the public service is in a post-structural era; where power is

exercised through networks, where influence is derived from cooperation . . .

Mel Cappe, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet,

speech to APEX, May 31, 2001

One can imagine at least three degrees of horizontal work:

• Horizontal attitudes and culture

When individuals make a conscious effort to work horizontally in their daily work

lives, building informal ties that facilitate sharing.

• Horizontal coordination

When organizations coordinate work to reduce or eliminate overlap and duplication.

• Horizontal collaboration

When resources, work and/or decision making are integrated across organizations.

When we move from horizontal culture to collaboration, we generally move from the simple

sharing of information to the sharing of resources, work and ultimately authority.1 We therefore

move from relatively few to many administrative and accountability requirements (e.g., financial,

human resource, and legal). While a horizontal culture (e.g., openness and information sharing)

is a critical foundation for any horizontal work, this report focuses principally on the

management of horizontal projects.

Horizontal Management Is More an Art Than a Science

There are no hard and fast rules for leading a horizontal initiative. Nor is there a simple formula

to successful horizontal management:

Managing horizontally is not a technique like flying an airplane. Ultimately it depends on

judgment and ingenuity, a willingness to take risks, and both patience and determination.

Roundtable member

1 For more on these three categories of what is being shared, see Consulting and Audit Canada report Impediments to Partnering

and the Role of Treasury Board (May 13, 1998), p. 8.


Horizontal Management Is Becoming More Central to Good Governance

The Roundtable identified three reasons why the importance of horizontal management is likely

to continue to grow.

The most important reason is effectiveness. Horizontal

management is often the only or the best way to get results. It

may not be the most efficient method, especially in the short

run, but over time it can be the most effective. It responds to

public service challenges that are increasingly complex and

being analyzed afresh from horizontal perspectives. Managing

Canada’s oceans, restoring the ecological health of the St.

Lawrence River, or putting in place a national children’s agenda

illustrate how the broad range of players involved and the

limited capacity of any one player to “go it alone” makes

horizontal management a necessity. To ensure effectiveness, we

need to strengthen coordination of policy development and

service delivery, and linkages between policy and operations,

across government. In the case of oceans policy, for example,

23 federal departments and agencies have oceans responsibilities; ten are major players; and

there are more than 100 legal instruments that regulate oceans-related activities.

The Oceans Act places sole responsibility on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for developing

and implementing an oceans management strategy, without providing any new levers to

accomplish this task. This situation necessitates horizontal collaboration with other federal

departments, other levels of government, and other stakeholders.

Oceans Act

It is only possible to realize how complex the task we faced was when one considers the large

number of organizations that have jurisdiction over aspects of the St. Lawrence ecosystem, and the

number of often conflicting uses that are associated with the river.

St. Lawrence Action Plan

Working horizontally is done for a purpose — to pull tools from other departments to be part of

the solution.

Satellite event participant

Managing Canada’s oceans,

restoring the ecological health of

the St. Lawrence River, or putting

in place a national children’s

agenda illustrate how the broad

range of players involved and the

limited capacity of any one player

to “go it alone” makes horizontal

management a necessity.


The second factor relates to technology. In discussion, e-government was seen to have the

potential of bringing about a dramatic change in how government operates. We can expect an

ever-increasing degree of customer and citizen scrutiny of the delivery of our services with

implications for how we organize ourselves.

Government on-line will require a much more seamless and collaborative pattern of relationships

behind the scenes. Working horizontally will cease to be an option. It will be essential.


The third reason is about values. One question we asked ourselves was: “How will the public

service adapt to younger generations who expect to be connected?” There was a sense that the

so-called nexus generation is less comfortable with the old certainties and the old categories. At

the same time there is ample evidence from public-values research showing a decline of

deference, as part of a broad-based shift in authority relations across western society. Increasing

the ability of governments to act as parts of networks of actors in solving social and economic

problems is seen to respond both to the value base of the coming generation of leaders and the

expectations of the public.

Horizontal Management Is Not a Silver Bullet

Not everything is horizontal — it isn’t always relevant.


There was also a clear warning about not looking to

horizontal management as a cure for all ills or as an

end in itself. Horizontal management has enormous

benefits, but it also has risks:

• Horizontal management elongates the decision

making process. Gaining the trust and securing

the collaboration of a network requires a large

investment of time and energy.

• “Group think” is a danger inherent in the

coordination and cooperation aspects of too many

projects — “Consensus is a hobgoblin.” Consensus

can drive to the “lowest common denominator” at

the expense of the tougher choices that may better

serve the public interest.

• Horizontal processes can become disconnected from the channels of authority, accountability

and action when an initiative is not linked back into its supporting — often vertical —

structures. This can happen when the people sitting around the table either fail to

communicate decisions “back home” or have not been given the authority to negotiate.

Ensuring the initiative becomes part of the organization’s official planning process is critical

in order to leverage support and resources.

“Group think” is a danger

inherent in the coordination and

cooperation aspects of too many

projects. Consensus can drive to

the “lowest common denominator”

at the expense of the tougher

choices that may better serve the

public interest.


These risks serve to underline the importance of looking to horizontal management as a means

to an end and not as an end in itself. Horizontal management is not a value, it is a tool. Our

central advice here is that the decision to undertake a horizontal initiative should be a

purposeful one, based on a thorough assessment of the results sought and the options available.

Crosscutting Themes That Emerged From the Roundtable’s Work

Reinventing Leadership

Most important of all, horizontal management demands a

reinvented form of leadership — a leadership that supports

the evolution of culture as much as a leadership that delivers

projects on time and on budget. We need leadership that

marshals the powers of influence and persuasion, is exercised

through the channels of dialogue, is distributed throughout an

organization, shares credit, and risks transient confusion en

route to shared commitment.

Horizontal management requires a redefinition of the role of

departments and the government as a whole. Participants suggested that departments are

reluctant to allow a single department to take the lead in coordinating various initiatives. To

require departments to work horizontally means that every department will have to be prepared

to play second fiddle at times.

Encourage senior public servants to define problems in a horizontal way. How they define issues

and ask others to work on them is critical.


Most senior public servants use the rhetoric of advocating horizontal management. But action

too often contradicts rhetoric as managers seek to advance their departmental interest by

bringing colleagues over to their point of view. Leaders need to align words and action, only

using the language of horizontal management when they truly intend to invest in the dialogue

and partnership it implies.

Building on a Foundation of Culture and Trust

Developing a supportive culture and building trust among participants is an indispensable

element. They will make or break any initiative. The amount of time it takes to develop trust

varies — depending on the history of the relationships among members, on the compatibility of

their goals and interests, and on the extent of conflict in mandates or objectives.

We need leadership that

marshals the powers of influence

and persuasion, is exercised

through the channels of dialogue,

is distributed throughout an

organization, shares credit, and

risks transient confusion en route

to shared commitment.

Managing Changing Needs

In many situations the key challenge is managing the evolution of an initiative. An initiative

changes over time — as the relationships within the network mature, and as the initiative takes

on concrete objectives. The nature of the supports, the machinery, and the skills that are needed

will also evolve. The need to adapt is another reason why horizontal management is more an art

than a science and why judgment is a critical component of successful leadership. In the words of

one participant, “In horizontal management — as in humour — timing is everything.”

Maintaining Vertical Contact

The reality of working horizontally in a vertical institutional setting means linking back to the

vertical structure that is normally the source of funding and authority. Neglecting these links can

be fatal. Strong vertical links are as important as strong horizontal links. Without vertical

support, horizontal initiatives are vulnerable. One frequent and frustrating barrier to success was

participants who lacked delegated authority from home organizations to make decisions.

On Team Canada Inc., each person had a good background in their own business and was therefore

able to negotiate on the margins.

Roundtable member

Making Support Systems Work

The need to share information and knowledge, resources, work, and decision-making is becoming

more pressing. Yet many of the support systems we have in place — from databases and

software, to financial management systems, budgeting and audit and evaluation functions, to

accountability frameworks — too often work against rather than in support of such activities.

The result is the need for extraordinary determination and ingenuity to achieve success. More

attention is needed to streamline the support systems, and to share experience on how to use

those that exist.

Key Dimensions of Horizontal Management

In horizontal projects there are four key dimensions to success (see figure below). Each of the

dimensions is explored in the next four sections of this report.


1Chapter

2Chapter

3Chapter

4Chapter

Mobilizing Teams and Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Developing a Shared Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Building Supportive Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Maintaining Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33


1ChapterMobilizing Teams and Networks

Introduction

The diversity of players found in horizontal networks

has mushroomed during the past five to ten years;

interdepartmental collaboration is only part of the

picture. Provincial and municipal governments, and a range

of stakeholders with different interests and backgrounds,

including NGOs, professional associations, volunteers,

advocates, service organizations, and the private sector,

may all now be involved.

There was widespread agreement across the federal

regional councils that the primary determinants

of success were more cultural than institutional

in nature.

The Federal Regional

Councils and

Horizontal Governance,

September 2000

Personality still explains 98% of success.

Roundtable member

It is as if the laws of gravity have changed. There is suddenly no centre of gravity and all the

elements of a formerly orderly “solar system” are spinning around each other in wild motion. This

is my metaphor for thinking about horizontal management. How we relate to each other and to

the centre is no longer given. It has to be created. There’s a lot of responsibility in this — but also a

lot of opportunity.


Despite the degree of diversity,

the challenges of horizontal

management remain the same

— sharing leadership, team

building, linking cultures, sharing

responsibility, and building trust

emerge as the single most

important cluster of success

factors. People make it happen,

or they break it.

Sharing Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Investing in Teamwork . . . . . . . . . . .9

Developing a Shared Culture . . . . . .11

Building Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

From Mobilizing Teams and Networks

to Developing a Shared Framework . .15


Sharing Leadership

The pattern of successful leadership that emerged from our studies is somewhat paradoxical.

On the one hand, successful horizontal initiatives were often the story of intensive individual

effort. On the other hand, leadership in successful initiatives was often distributed.

Both Team Canada Inc. and the Voluntary Sector Task Force relied upon a shared model of leadership

where the locus of leadership shifted according to the nature of the challenges at hand.

Shared leadership at all levels (ministers, senior officials, participants) proved to be an effective

means of maintaining commitment.

Team Canada Inc.

There were many leaders from participating departments. Leaders were not necessarily at the

ADM level but were individuals committed to working on issues.

Voluntary Sector Task Force

Sharing leadership makes it possible to handle the challenges of horizontal management. In a

study conducted for the Roundtable on the role of federal regional councils, Luc Juillet found that:

It was generally necessary for a number of council members to assume positions of leadership

on specific files and initiatives. This form of “distributed leadership” proved to be essential for

councils to handle a larger set of horizontal files and to maintain a clear sense that the councils’

work responds to the members’ own needs and priorities. As such, leadership should not be

incumbent only on the chairperson and should be shared widely among the membership.

The Federal Regional Councils and Horizontal Governance, September 2000

Team Canada Inc. also found during the initial stages

of its establishment that a cohesive team of three

leaders (Industry Canada, Department of Foreign

Affairs and International Trade, Agriculture and Agri-

Food Canada) was key to the overall success of the

project. Their ability to work as a team, to override turf

issues, and drive the initiative made the difference.

Successful leadership also exhibits a blend of the

traditional leadership appropriate to a hierarchical

bureaucracy with a new form of leadership.

Leadership in horizontal management means using

the powers of influence and persuasion through the

channels of dialogue. This form of leadership can nurture and strengthen trust, and lead the

process of cultural change. The Roundtable found that leadership for horizontal management

Leaders had the ability to

identify systemic linkages, goal

conflicts, and sources of

resistance, to communicate

areas of mutual interest, and to

bring teams and networks of

stakeholders together. They also

showed the courage to act when

full consensus proved elusive.


requires, at the root, the ability to manage relationships of interdependency. Leaders had the

ability to identify systemic linkages, goal conflicts, and sources of resistance, to communicate

areas of mutual interest, and to bring teams and networks of stakeholders together. They also

showed the courage to act when full consensus proved elusive.

The ability to persuade and motivate members in the absence of formal authority and vertical

incentives and to rally people around common objectives were seen as important

leadership competencies.

The Federal Regional Councils and

Horizontal Governance, September 2000

Investing in Teamwork

The ability to build and sustain a team was found to be one of the key tests of the leadership

needed to make horizontal work happen. The teams encountered in these case studies varied

significantly in nature. They include the tightly cohesive teams that operated over the 36 hours

of the Swissair search and rescue operation, to the network of teams that continues to work on

the restoration of the St. Lawrence River, 13 years after coming into being. What determines the

nature of teams are differences in time frame, the number of participants to be coordinated

and clarity of purpose. In the Swissair case the mission was clear from the first instant. In the

case of New Brunswick’s Joint Economic Development Initiative, common objectives emerged

over many months.

Early Engagement

One key factor is early engagement, but there is a risk involved. Expanding a network too early

can make consensus harder to build. On the other hand, the length of time required for building

a shared sense of trust and a shared understanding underlines the importance of engaging all

potential players at the beginning of a process. The sooner people are engaged, the easier it will

be to develop a sense of ownership of the process, and a willingness to stay at the table. In

retrospect, one early shortcoming of the St. Lawrence Action Plan was the failure to fully engage

federal and provincial governments from the beginning. It was felt that a lot of time and effort

was required further down the road to make up for this early misstep.

It is also critical to involve the right people in the right way. This often demands ingenuity. In the

case of the Voluntary Sector initiative, it was not obvious whom to involve. The approach used

was to identify impartial people knowledgeable of the sector but not involved and ask them to

nominate participants from among the 1,500 people who applied. About 70 were selected to

serve on a variety of collaborative mechanisms with 12 government officials to plan and manage

the work of the initiative. An open and transparent process to select participants can yield

benefits in terms of credibility with participants and stakeholders.

Rewarding and Recognizing Success

The Roundtable also found that the costs of participation in horizontal initiatives are great in

terms of time and energy — and the rewards are relatively few. The incentives to cooperate are

not always there. In fact, sometimes people can calculate whether the pay-offs in cooperation

are likely to be greater than in the lack of cooperation. They then act accordingly. Many

participants talked about the workload problem and the fact that horizontal projects sat on the

desk corner as an adjunct to people’s day jobs.


One of the tools that proved successful in nurturing and motivating teams was the simple act of

rewarding and recognizing success. Bonus pay, additional discretionary time, and awards are

examples that were found effective. The Saskatchewan Federal Council has recognized federal

employees through certificates of recognition, formal luncheons with the Federal Council and in

newsletters. The Quebec Council of Senior Federal Officials has hosted a Distinction Awards Gala

as part of its reward program. This Gala recognizes the work of the employees involved in

interdepartmental projects.

Informal means of recognition can be equally rewarding for team members. For example, praise

privately or in front of other team members can go a long way to creating and maintaining

enthusiasm.

Managing Change and Diversity Within Networks

A number of cases demonstrated the need to build a

broad network of third parties and stakeholders whose

involvement — at different levels of intensity and effort

— can be critical. Such a network can be a source of

objective advice, particularly when an initiative is

dealing with a contentious issue. In the magazine

policy case, for example, involving a hotly contested

trade dispute between Canada and the United States,

the solution was suggested by an American government

representative not involved in the dispute resolution.

A key issue is how to involve stakeholders in policy development and balance provincial interests

with those of stakeholders and citizens. The NGO community can be an important contributor at

the thinking level. There is a challenge in finding new models to bring everyone to the table.


A key challenge in the management of these networks is that members are diverse in their

capacity and relationships are therefore asymmetrical. Some groups are better resourced, better

skilled, better prepared, more sophisticated and therefore better able to enter into a partnership.

This initiative [urban aboriginal strategy] has had turf problems perhaps because there is strong

personal interest in the midst of scarcity which makes things extremely immovable . . . . The

challenge has been to encourage all partners to bring available resources to the table (direct and

indirect) and to recognize not all contributions need to be equal nor can they be counted only on a

financial basis.

Roundtable member

Although Rescue Coordination Centre - Halifax (RCC Halifax) has the federal mandate for

aeronautical and maritime search and rescue operations, it frequently relies on various other

federal, provincial, municipal, local volunteer groups and associations to help. Some of those

partner groups have similar functions, albeit for different environments. Contrary to expectations,

not all partners had formal strategies to face such an emergency. Some had no contingency plans

to deal with incidents of such magnitude while others were fully prepared to respond in an

organized manner.

Swissair Search and Rescue

A key challenge in the

management of these networks

is that members are diverse in

their capacity and relationships

are therefore asymmetrical. Some

groups are better resourced,

better skilled, better prepared,

more sophisticated and therefore

better able to enter into a

partnership.


In the case of the Policy Research Initiative, the two networks that were most successful in

horizontal exercises were composed of smaller departments that perceived a value in sharing.

The large government department network members saw less value in sharing and, as a result,

were less collegial.

It will only work if there is respect between people. There has to be a basic level of belief that each

party is willing and able to contribute something.

Roundtable member

Large departments have a special responsibility to listen

to the perspectives of smaller departments. They need to

resist the temptation of assuming their outlook already

integrates all the salient and critical insights. Small

departments, for their part, should look for areas of

common interest with other organizations, find areas

where they can provide the most value, and leverage

their unique strengths.

Developing a Shared Culture

One key determinant of success seems to be the extent to which participants developed a shared

culture. People may initially come to the table with differing perspectives, agendas, and

understandings of why they are there. They may be there to explore real opportunities, to

identify potential benefits for their organization, to decide whether they should participate, or to

promote their own agenda. An organization and its partners come to the table with different

assumptions and use specialized terminology.

Creating a Shared Vocabulary

Learning to speak a common language is crucial. One solution to this challenge is the

development of a shared vocabulary.

In the case of the National Children’s Agenda, Health Canada looked at problems from the point of

view of health determinants. HRDC looked at the issue from the point of view of human capital

development. We needed to develop a subsidiary vocabulary that worked for both groups.

Roundtable member

HQ and regional vocabularies are different, especially if you talk with policy people. They describe

things differently. We need to spend more time together. We need a common base of

understanding. You can’t get the wisdom of people if you don’t take the time to get an

understanding.


Members of Rural Team New Brunswick did not have a common vision until the team committed

to the strategic plan. The strategic planning process also allowed members to realize that the

terminology we use on a daily basis frequently does not hold the same meaning from one

department to another.

Rural Team New Brunswick

Large departments have a

special responsibility to listen

to the perspectives of smaller

departments. They need to resist

the temptation of assuming their

outlook already integrates all the

salient and critical insights.


Understanding Each Other’s Perspective

Understanding one another is about more than

terminology. A deeper understanding is needed:

“shared mental models,”“core shaping assumptions

and values,” and “common narratives” were different

phrases participants used to express the need for a

deeper and more empathetic understanding. We also

need to have an understanding of the pressures that

partners experience. In the Canadian Magazine Policy case study the successful collaboration

between Canadian Heritage and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

depended on the “ability to walk in each other’s shoes and to understand each other’s pressures.”

Linking cultures means bringing existing cultures together and developing a subsidiary working

culture. It does not mean forcing partners to abandon their own culture or work practices.

At the outset, the goal was not to change the culture of each organization involved in the action

plan but to learn to work together on a series of projects. Top officials dealt with each other with

respect from the beginning of the process. Some time was needed for people from different

organizations to learn to work in a consensus mode. Trust became embedded at all work levels.

Credibility, respect and trust were the values promoted. Open communication, flexibility and rapid

problem solving were also important.


Techniques for developing a shared culture

Many of the effective techniques are simple ones: continued dialogue, information sharing, and

personnel sharing. Another useful technique is clearly-signaled expectations and a very

conscious strategy to intercept the turf protection “reflex.”

From the beginning it was made clear that there would be no tolerance for turf battles. There was

pride in the corporate product and the Team Canada Inc. concept.

Roundtable member

Shared communications (joint reports, special signature, Web sites, phone number, business cards)

have proven to be an effective means of maintaining commitment.

Team Canada Inc.

Ambiguity and Clarity

At the initial stage of a project, people can be uncomfortable with ambiguity. However, many

experiences showed that premature clarity could kill a new initiative. The risk is that vision,

terminology and work plans, if they are seen to be imposed by one leader, will be rejected.

Patience in allowing clarity to emerge proved valuable in initiatives with long time frames and

wide circles of participants. In other cases, where timelines were externally driven (e.g., by trade

disputes, as in the magazine policy issue), clarity of roles and objectives were needed from the

very beginning. The smaller the network of participants, and the longer the history of

collaborative relations, the easier it is to achieve clarity.

Linking cultures means bringing

existing cultures together and

developing a subsidiary working

culture. It does not mean forcing

partners to abandon their own

culture or work practices.

Building Trust

Trust is the glue that holds an initiative together. But on what does trust depend? How do you

make it happen?

The first and most basic rule seems to be that trust does not exist between institutions. It exists

between individuals. This was stressed repeatedly.

Identifying new solutions requires good will and trust. “People don’t trust institutions — but they

do trust other people.”

Urban Aboriginal Strategy

Interdepartmental trust is not embedded in departments’ culture. Trust is built from the

credibility of the participants. Trust is also built on transparency, knowledge, and competence.

Canadian Magazine Policy

It was also felt that in order to develop basic trust,

someone needs to lead the way and “suspend his or her

distrust.”

Gaining Credibility Through Small and Simple Actions

The complement to trust is credibility. If people are seen

to be playing games, playing one side against another, or

using relationships to achieve a hidden agenda, then the

distrust engendered is fatal. Participants emphasized over

and over the importance of credibility. But credibility is not gained through a single grand

gesture. Credibility is won through the accumulation of a series of small and simple actions.

Honouring small undertakings builds the confidence that larger commitments will be respected.

Ensuring credibility is key — adherence to verbal agreements, timely responses, communication of

information, regular meetings.

Joint Economic Development Initiative

Investing in Relationships

Trust also takes time. The reality, however, is that time is often a luxury and it is always

expensive. The key therefore is anticipation and laying the groundwork. Trust needs to be

cultivated. The Policy Research Initiative (Trends Project) found that the teams that coalesced best

were ones where there was a pre-existing working relationship, however informal or tentative.

This saved a lot of time when the rubber hit the road.

It was important for the Trends teams to cohere and work well as a single team. The teams were

often comprised of people who had previously not known one another and who may not have been

aware of one another’s professional reputations. To launch the project, the Policy Research Initiative

brought the Trends team members to Ottawa for a two-day conference. Despite the availability of

innovative technical support tools, face-to-face interaction is important. Teams began to cohere only

after several interactions had taken place where people had a chance to build relationships.

Moreover, teams tended to emerge most quickly where academic researchers and government

policy developers already had some familiarity with one another and/or with each other’s work.

Policy Research Initiative (Trends Project)


Credibility is won through

the accumulation of a series

of small and simple actions.

Honouring small undertakings

builds the confidence that larger

commitments will be respected.


It can easily take a year to get people to a comfort zone. Dialogue can continue even if there is no

formal agreement. By not setting fixed agendas for meetings, participants were able to dialogue

more openly. Through federal leadership at the table, the conversations were boiled down into

priorities. This process alone took four meetings, before participants could move forward towards

more active implementation. It also helped that early establishment of the principle of cooperation

for the community — not for an organization — limited conflict at the table.


Sustained relationship building outside the context of specific initiatives also proved to have a

substantial payoff in terms of how well networks work together.

In the end, it was recognized that regular face-to-face visits between service providers would

enable discussion of various issues, including contingency plans, and promote a better

understanding of each other’s capabilities.

Swissair Flight 111 — Search and Rescue Operations

This is a pattern that applied within — as much as between — organizations. One participant

observed that the capacity of an organization to communicate with its partners was often a

function of its capacity to communicate internally.

Relationships at different levels are critical (between ministers, deputy ministers, the working level)

— both horizontally and vertically within a department. The ability to conduct policy management

within a department — internal politics around who does policy and what they communicate

— has a very direct effect on how effectively a department can manage horizontal issues.

Roundtable member

Dialogue Is an Essential Element of Trust

Trust and the linking of cultures depend on frank and ongoing dialogue among key stakeholders.

Leading a dialogue was seen to require the ability to listen carefully, to communicate messages

persuasively to diverse audiences, and to mediate conflict. The central task of leadership is to

facilitate a deeper exchange of views and ideas on (sometimes controversial) subjects crucial to

the success of a horizontal initiative.

Communications across departments and with sector leaders are open and transparent. It’s more

than communications — it’s about maintaining a continuous dialogue and developing methods to

consult broadly. Many means are used: Web sites, newsletters, face-to-face meetings, etc. The

process in place allows for horizontal and vertical communications.

Voluntary Sector Initiative


But there are dilemmas in conducting an open dialogue, especially where cabinet-level decision-

making is required.

A key constraint on our ability to be inclusive and provide feedback is the sensitive and secret

nature of advice to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. A key issue is how to manage the tension

between a fairly open horizontal process and a vertical product output. We set up a collaborative

horizontal process in order to gather information, assessments and analysis, but at the end of the

day, the development of the final product becomes the responsibility of one person or

organization, and that final product is delivered in the context of secret advice to ministers. . . .

Enthusiasm and credibility may be lost if horizontal processes are one-way exercises. A two-way

process would build in more effective feedback, ensuring that everyone benefits from analysis, the

formulation of strategic advice, and can provide advice to their own departments.

Medium-Term Planning

In order to act in ways that build trust, the partners need to be empowered to make commitments

and to stick to them. This implies becoming engaged at the appropriate level in the organization,

and maintaining constant communication with one’s superiors to confirm undertakings.

From Mobilizing Teams and Networks to Developing a Shared Framework

Without a spirit of teamwork, horizontal initiatives will not succeed. This makes the capacity to

mobilize teams and networks indispensable. In turn, it means dialogue, open channels of

communication, building a shared vocabulary, and recognizing and respecting differences. But

teamwork is never sufficient. As initiatives progress from the framing of problems and the

sharing of information to the sharing of resources and decision-making authority, more

structure is needed. The spirit of cooperation and shared

vocabulary can only be translated into real action and real

results by putting in place a framework that identifies

tangible goals and accountabilities. The ability to turn a

spirit of cooperation into a framework for action is the

true test of an initiative’s durability and resilience.

The spirit of cooperation and

shared vocabulary can only be

translated into real action and

real results by putting in place a

framework that identifies tangible

goals and accountabilities.



2ChapterDeveloping a Shared Framework

Introduction

A framework translates good will and teamwork into action. It

gives shape and purpose to a horizontal initiative. It does this

in three ways: it reflects a shared understanding of the issues

in play; it identifies shared goals and results (including

specific performance measures); and it provides a means

of accounting to partners, to the public and to governing

bodies for actions taken and resources spent.

In form, frameworks can vary from federal-provincial

agreements or policy frameworks anchored in memoranda

to Cabinet, to verbal agreements. If there are two key

messages to be learned from the challenge of developing a

shared framework, they are that

• clarity around roles and responsibilities is important to accountability, but the most critical

tool of all is a shared set of objectives;

• the process of developing a framework is often as valuable as the framework itself.

Developing a Shared Understanding

To be effective a framework must be more than a business plan or an accountability framework

on paper. It must be based on a shared understanding, a common fact base and an appreciation

for the different perspectives and values brought to the initiative by different participants.

If you want to find true horizontal solutions, you have to understand what the issues are. It is key

that everybody feels and understands each other’s pressures.


Managers developing policy for the implementation of the Oceans Act described one of the most

challenging tasks they faced as building a common understanding among a multitude of users.

There is an increasing number of oceans users, accompanied by a shift from the primary focus on

fisheries to multiple use. Given the diversity of users, there is a need to allow players to see the

bigger picture — to foster an understanding that their activities have impacts on ocean resources

and that other ocean users have legitimate interests. Engagement and integration take time,

effort, and a lot of commitment. It will require the development of new governance structures to

integrate the various federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and stakeholder interests.

Roundtable member

A framework translates good

will and teamwork into action.

It gives shape and purpose to

a horizontal initiative.

Developing a

Shared Understanding . . . . . . . . . . .17

Defining Shared Goals and Results .18

Addressing the Accountability

Conundrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

From Developing a Shared Framework

to Building Supportive Structures . . .23


Instrumental to developing a shared understanding is a common fact base. Some case studies

emphasized the value of investing time at the beginning to develop this fact base as the

foundation of further action. This can be a highly rigorous exercise — or it can be informal,

even conversational.

Good analysis was reflected in a “101” deck. It was very helpful because everyone shared a common

fact base: it built confidence in the analysis and, in the end, nobody disagreed with the analysis. As

well, a road map showing what would be done to solve the problem within 15 months was

provided at the beginning of the initiative.


Sharing of data requires information systems that are interoperable. It also requires data that

are compatible. This was a particular challenge for large science-intensive projects like the

St. Lawrence Action Plan, which depended on the integration of data from multiple disciplines

— from ecology and chemistry to economics.

Another central issue is when and how far to formalize a framework. The answers require

judgment and on-the-ground knowledge. In some cases, the key to success has been pushing the

development of a shared framework as early as possible. In other cases, a high degree of patience

was necessary to allow for the emergence of a sense of trust. The leadership challenge is knowing

when to push and when to hold back.

Defining Shared Goals and Results: A Key Turning Point

The identification of shared goals and results was found to be a critical success factor and

marked a key turning point in the progress of many initiatives. Goals themselves varied in

specificity. They ranged from the broad commitments of the Leadership Network to “implement

La Relève” to the specific targets identified in the work plans of the St. Lawrence Action Plan to

restore habitat and reduce effluent from priority sites by predetermined percentages. Having

concrete goals, however, depended on extensive analyses as well as a sense of what collective

effort can achieve. The more time invested in developing a fact base, the better and more

indicative the goals and the more effective the partnership is likely to be.

The departments, under the memorandum of understanding (MOU), envisioned collective results

which made it easier to align activities. While joint business planning is important, the real

challenge is to define common goals. Action plans of the sort that may satisfy the Office of the

Auditor General might do little more than roll together a lot of disconnected activities. The real

challenge is to have all parties agree on goals that will shape not only the activity captured under

the MOU but also influence the ancillary work of the departments.

Five Department MOU on Science and Technology for Sustainable

Development

The “Working Together” report presented 26 recommendations from participants. This document

was published by the participants themselves rather than as a government publication in order to

resolve the dilemma of the bureaucratic role in providing impartial advice. By using this approach

it became possible to submit recommendations representing the consensus of bureaucrats and

voluntary leaders.



On the other hand, systems of measurement must serve the project and its goals, not replace

them. This is one of the key risks of a results-focused strategy that we identified. Shared goals are

not necessarily the same as “measurable results.”

Sometimes the goals of initiatives are more sophisticated than the thinking of officials who have

the job of finding something to measure.

Roundtable member

Results can also give a false sense of security. In many cases, social science may not be able to

measure what is needed.

We must rethink our cosmetic use of false social science in various evaluative and coordination

theories being advanced. Current measurement theory and information aggregation capacity

cannot support the conceptual links being made.

Roundtable member

Decision making and results measurement often take place at very different speeds. Results

information is not always available when decisions have to be made.

Although the first plan was based on achieving measurable results, measurement tools were not

available at the beginning of the plan. There were also delays caused by the need to come to

common agreement on how to understand certain concepts that were difficult to apply and how

to define certain environmental objectives. . . . It should also be understood that there is a time lag

between new scientific results and their use when making managerial decisions.


The conclusion is that a results-focused strategy can be particularly effective for horizontal initiatives.

Nonetheless, there are inherent risks that can be managed if they are clearly acknowledged.

Addressing the Accountability Conundrum

Accountability is often viewed as a significant obstacle to

horizontal management. On the basis of interviews of

federal regional council participants, Luc Juillet found

that, for many, the confusion and potential pitfalls

around accountability provoked caution about launching

into horizontal initiatives.

Indeed, the need to reconcile individual accountability

with a collective sense of purpose and responsibility is

one of the most significant tensions to be resolved in the

management of a horizontal initiative.

Collective responsibility exists regarding the issues of urban aboriginals, but collective

accountability is a more complex matter.

Roundtable member

Systems of measurement must

serve the project and its goals,

not replace them. This is one of

the key risks of a results-focused

strategy. Shared goals are not

necessarily the same

as “measurable results.”


Horizontal Initiatives Multiply Accountabilities

Traditional accountability frameworks within the Public Service of Canada are vertical. They are

based on the principle of ministerial responsibility. They establish a clear hierarchical structure of

authority and, in turn, accountability within departments. Horizontal initiatives also create

accountabilities between partners and may also include mechanisms to provide accountability

more directly to citizens.

Sharing responsibility for horizontal initiatives, and sharing departmental resources to jointly

pursue common objectives, tends to blur these traditional lines of accountability. For example, who

will be held formally accountable for a shared horizontal initiative that fails? Should public

managers or ministers be held accountable for initiatives that they do not fully control?

Roundtable member

Horizontal initiatives can raise problems of democratic accountability . . . while these problems can

be considered to be minor with regard to relatively simple and limited initiatives (such as the

provision of shared internal services), they can become acutely important when managers are asked

to commit resources and take responsibility for complex, high-profile horizontal policy initiatives.

Roundtable member

Intergovernmental horizontal initiatives of broad enough scale raise a number of democratic

challenges. For example, the political level in one government might think the initiative is

fulfilling the purpose or objective of a particular policy or program; however, if administrative

implementation is not linked back to the political level, this can dilute what the policy or

program is trying to achieve. For example, it could reduce ministers’ influence on outcomes that

affect the public by “blending” one government’s standards (e.g., criteria, guidelines,

requirements) with those of another government. As a result, ensuring that all ministers

connected to a horizontal initiative are regularly briefed is central not only to good horizontal

management, but to effective democratic accountability.

Internal Barriers to Accountability

Often what appear to be accountability barriers are in fact rules and procedures required by

individual departments. They are put in place in response to Treasury Board or Auditor General

requirements for clarity and due process. The inconsistency of these rules and procedures between

organizations and agreements can create a real challenge.

Performance evaluations for executives and employees also tend to be narrowly tied to

departmental objectives and mandates.

Roundtable member


Differences in federal and provincial administrative requirements (i.e., application procedures,

authorization processes) were considered to be a factor that impeded the success of this initiative.

Most of these processes were put in place so as to ensure accountability provisions.


Councils were also generally short of organizational resources and, sometimes, administrative

rules developed to serve an hierarchical, vertical structure created operational difficulties for

sharing resources in the pursuit of collective objectives.



Innovating for Accountability

The case studies, however, provide ample evidence that

there is flexibility within existing frameworks to make

accountability work for, rather than against, a project. The

make-or-break variable is not the requirement for

accountability, but the way accountability is managed, as

well as the capacity of managers and organizations to

take measured risks and to be innovative.

In the cases of the Joint Economic Development Initiative and of the Voluntary Sector Task Force, an

effective solution proved to be to work with Treasury Board to develop an accountability framework.

We try to work horizontally but at the end of the day we remain vertically accountable. This requires

being very clear on outcomes, and how you plan to deliver and report on these outcomes. One

approach is to develop a new accountability tree and to propose it to Treasury Board Secretariat.

This is consistent with the new concept of modern comptrollership that focuses on outcomes.


The St. Lawrence Action Plan is an example of a mature and highly institutionalized initiative

with some very sophisticated accountability arrangements in place. These arrangements

demonstrate how a horizontal initiative is ensuring accountability. The co-chairs of the Canada-

Quebec Agreement are accountable for the achievement of all results announced in the St.

Lawrence Vision 2000 (SLV 2000) Action Plan. Accountability is delegated for each of the seven

issues to the Cooperation Committee co-chairs. Each partner is responsible for achieving set

objectives and for resource management. The program also has an interdepartmental

performance framework, an Internet-based management and performance system, and periodic

accounting of the level of achievement of results to the Agreement Management Committee. A

joint federal-provincial mid-program evaluation has been conducted.

The make-or-break variable is not

the requirement for accountability,

but the way accountability is

managed, as well as the capacity

of managers and organizations

to take measured risks and to

be innovative.


A communications policy that defines the main objectives and states the management structure

and communication guidelines to be respected was accepted by all partners in 1998. Periodic

reports on what has been accomplished were shared with the public through annual reports, the

Le Fleuve information bulletin, the SLV 2000 Web site, and joint news releases and press conferences.

A multidisciplinary team (10 people) of representatives of Environment Canada, Fisheries and

Oceans Canada, and the Quebec Ministry of Environment and Wildlife produced State of the

St. Lawrence River reports and issued fact sheets.

It is desirable to have a clear accountability framework in place up front regarding the role of

the federal government. But sometimes it is necessary to let consensus around problems and

solutions emerge slowly from a process of dialogue before you can have a meaningful

accountability framework.

In the case of the Urban Aboriginal Strategy, it was noted that “a clear mandate and defined

federal capacity to support the assigned ministerial accountability would have been helpful from

the start.” Accountability and capacity were also issues for the aboriginal governments. The lack

of clarity around accountability between provincial and local First Nations and Metis governments

on urban governance and urban service delivery was an initial obstacle to the development of

the urban aboriginal strategy. First Nations have resolved this issue, and the Metis community is

presently working to address it. In general, gaining clarity can take time because it is best if it

emerges from, as opposed to being imposed upon, participants of an initiative.

Creating an Accountability Framework

The strength of accountability frameworks also proved to be a key factor in affecting the success

or failure of initiatives.

Progress on accountability is critical if we want to make progress on horizontal management.

Roundtable member

Work is being done to capture the lessons about securing accountability when working

horizontally. Most notable are the 1999 and 2000 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.2 Also

of interest is the Collectives Results Database, established by the Treasury Board Secretariat to

bring together information about horizontal initiatives and their performance measurement

strategies.3 Drawing from the principles and lessons learned from intergovernmental and

interdepartmental initiatives, Treasury Board Secretariat has also generated a helpful

accountability checklist (see Appendix 3).


To achieve a common understanding of the accountability framework, partners must determine

how power will be exercised (how decisions will be made and by whom, what processes or

structures will be used) and who will be responsible to whom for what.4 All partners must

understand and agree to the accountability framework.

From Developing a Shared Framework to Building Supportive Structures

The definition of a shared purpose is perhaps the most powerful tool of all. Throughout the cases

we studied, the specification of shared goals and shared results helped overcome turf battles,

and helped orient capacities and actions in relation to long-term objectives. Likewise, a shared

framework is also vital to the clarification of accountabilities. It links initiatives back to the

vertical world and connects them to the broader decision-making universe of Parliament and the

public. But a shared framework does not deliver results on its own. It can help frame objectives

and accountabilities, it can arrange for the pooling of resources, decision-making authority and

work. As horizontal initiatives gain momentum, supportive structures must be developed to give

the initiative coherence and direction. This is one area where innovation in the public service has

been particularly rich.

2See website at http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/

3See Web site at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/eppi-ibdrp/coll_res/coll_res_e.htm.

4Drawn from the report presented to the CCMD by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Horizontal Management: Trends in

Governance and Accountability (Ottawa November 2000), p. 11.


3ChapterBuilding Supportive Structures


Introduction

As a horizontal initiative progresses, a supportive structure can

help achieve results and give the initiative the appropriate

degree of permanence. The central observations of the

Roundtable are that:

• the right choice of structure depends on the goals of an

initiative, the tasks that it will undertake, and the stage

of its life cycle;

• managing the transition of structures is one of the central

leadership challenges experienced; and

• there is a broad range of structural solutions available.

In selecting supportive structures for horizontal initiatives,

the crucial issue is finding the right fit. Two factors in

particular determine appropriateness:

• tasks — whether the central task of the initiative is to share information, resources or

decision making; and

• stage — whether an initiative is at an early, middle or late stage of its life cycle.

Selecting a Supportive Structure

Many different kinds of structure can be used. Alternatives include joint decision-making

committees, written agreements and protocols, arrangements to share resources and

communication networks, to name just a few. Formal commitments, such as a memorandum of

understanding (MOU), were found to be a useful way to solidify horizontal relationships within

the Science and Technology Community.

A key role for supportive structures is to help sustain relationships among people over the longer

term. This requires balancing two conflicting tendencies. On the one hand, we found a need to

build supportive structures that give relationships resilience as other priorities divert people’s

energies. This is especially true as the number of partners increases or staff turns over. On the

other hand, too much formality may impede an initiative’s ability to adapt to changing

circumstances. There is also a risk that erecting elaborate and formal structures may overshadow

continued personal contact and commitment among the key players. Structures can displace the

spirit of volunteerism.

Machinery rarely solves problems. The softer factors are more important.

Roundtable member

Selecting a Supportive Structure .25

Matching Structure to Task . . . . . .28

Matching Structure to

Life-Cycle Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Using Expert Advice When Creating

Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

From Building Supportive Structures

to Maintaining Momentum . . . . . . . .32

In selecting supportive

structures for horizontal

initiatives, the crucial issue

is finding the right fit.


Opportunities to entrench structure, however, present themselves only occasionally. Some

participants in horizontal management regretted having passed up the opportunity to create

support structures, especially when leadership changed or staff turned over, and operating

norms had not yet been formalized.

Building support structures does not necessarily mean building concrete structures, such as new

offices, legal mandates, and staffing contingents. Such “machine-like” structures were often

found to be undesirable, especially early in an initiative’s development. For example, at the early

stage of the Team Canada Inc. initiative, it was necessary to demonstrate that a team-based

approach could in fact accomplish more than a bricks-and-mortar solution.

Nobody wanted to spend time creating a separate agency that would not result in a greater

improvement in delivery than a more informal approach.

Team Canada Inc.

A Wide Range of Structures Is Available

In recent years the number of horizontal structural innovations has increased dramatically. Our

Roundtable compiled an illustrative, although hardly exhaustive, list of structural possibilities

(see Appendix 4 for a list of examples of horizontal mechanisms). Several structural options were

found to be successful at different times and for different ends.

• Informal structures: less resource intensive, more flexible, and less binding on members.

• Agreements: formal indicators of support, or written agreements where participants commit

themselves to a course of action.

• Formal structures: less ambiguous, resource-intensive supports that require some logistical

skill and expertise to implement.

Informal Structures

Communities of practice are the best example of a flexible, informal structure used to support

horizontal relationships. They rely heavily on volunteerism and are not affiliated with any

particular organization. They are a forum in which practitioners with a shared interest in

working horizontally can meet and exchange ideas on a regular basis. It is through candid

conversation and a commitment to learning that members share ideas and work jointly to solve

problems. The Interdepartmental Knowledge Management Forum is an example of a community

of knowledge management practitioners. It meets monthly. Members exchange information

continually through the Internet. The community has grown over several years to include

participants from provincial governments and foreign countries.

Ad hoc or exploratory committees are support structures that are created to explore a particular

issue on a moment’s notice, while not necessarily committing participants to a course of action.

Such committees require minimal resources, but help potential partners clarify important issues

that might affect a horizontal initiative. They also provide a way of framing issues and helping

partners reach a common understanding of the challenges involved.


Agreements

Memorandums to Cabinet are a formal mechanism designed to ensure that ministerial

responsibility remains intact as horizontal initiatives bridge statutory mandates. They provide a

proactive way of informing senior officials of the accountability issues involved so that an

appropriate framework can be put into place.

Memorandums of Understanding are formal agreements that commit horizontal partners to a

course of action. These agreements retain enough flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.

They confirm a shared understanding of the key challenges, clarify terms of reference, and signal

a general direction to guide partners in their day-to-day activities. As the experience of the

Science and Technology Community demonstrates, the added value comes from the trust that is

developed as a result of an MOU:

While the amount of collaborative research conducted under the aegis of the MOU has been

limited, it has nonetheless fostered a level of cooperation and trust that all its signatories have

come to value.

Science and Technology Community

Protocols are used to help horizontal management partners set the ground rules and terms of

engagement. In information-sharing arrangements, protocols frequently specify how information

is to be laid out and exchanged. Protocols can also establish the parameters of sharing, so that all

partners have an understanding of what to expect and what role to play.

Finally, mandate letters provide horizontal partners with the requisite approval to proceed with

an initiative. They tend to be used in situations where mandated authority is shared or is ambiguous

in the first place. The clarity and sense of mission that is offered provides guidance and authority

to proceed without fear of unduly stepping on someone else’s terrain.

Formal Structures

A co-chaired advisory committee was found to be particularly useful to the Voluntary Sector

Initiative. The committee is comprised equally of government and voluntary sector officials and is

co-chaired by a person from each sector. The strength of this structure is that it provides a

systematic way to identify and discuss issues, while not letting any one group of stakeholders

dominate the agenda.

A joint decision-making committee helped partners in the St. Lawrence Action Plan to come to

agreement on some of the more complicated issues involved. Such committees provide a more

participatory process to resolve issues and develop mutually agreeable solutions. In this case, it

was also credited with helping to bring complex scientific knowledge together with practical

experience to come up with a series of actionable recommendations.

A temporary joint-coordination centre became the nerve centre of the Search and Rescue Operation

for Swissair Flight 111. Each participating organization had a liaison officer and, collectively, they

coordinated the emergency operation. By putting effective decision makers in one place, the

Centre was able to mobilize quickly and not have to resort to regular, time-consuming

channels of communication. Close proximity also facilitated a shared understanding of

the challenges involved.


The federal regional councils are an example of a long-term structure composed of senior officials

of federal departments and agencies. Each council has a formal budget to cover basic operational

costs, with additional funding volunteered by participating departments. The activities of the

councils range from information sharing and relationship building, to cooperation on internal

managerial files and assisting the coordination of policy horizontally. Although many regional

councils are highly institutionalized, none has taken on formal operational responsibilities of

their own. As Luc Juillet points out:

. . . while the councils constitute essential vehicles for the management of horizontal files,

entrusting them with the formal responsibility to lead a file was not seen to be necessarily the

best way to proceed. The focus should be on enhancing their capacity to provide support and act

as a forum for the development of horizontal leadership.



The creation of a new agency or secretariat set in place the most formal types of support

structures. In the case of the Leadership Network, a new agency was created to follow up on

the recommendations of the La Relève Task Force. The new organization was small enough to

work within the “spaces” not occupied by central agencies. Yet, at the same time, it had enough

resources at its disposal to cultivate networks of leaders across the entire public service. Since

it was established with a time-limited mandate, there was a strong motivation to make the

organization operational very quickly.

Matching Structure to Task

Matching structures to objectives involves looking closely at what partners are attempting to

share and to what end. Scale and scope will often determine the amount of logistical support an

initiative needs.

Different structural arrangements are better at different tasks. The Voluntary Sector Task Force

provides a good example.

The mechanism of joint tables worked well for policy exploration — but not as well

for policy analysis.


Matching structure to task proved to be one of the key challenges in getting the right structure

in place.

Sharing Information to Facilitate Coordination

One of the central tasks of horizontal initiatives is the sharing of information. The type of

support structure that is most suitable for this task depends on whether coordination is best

served through frequent and open conversation or the regular exchange of data and

documentation.


Frequent and open conversation may require only informal structures. Existing communications

networks (telephone and e-mail) facilitate periodic contact, but many complain that lack of

additional structures reduces collaboration to just “heads up” warnings and occasional debriefings.

Structures that facilitate more regular, face-to-face exchange often provide deeper communication.

Examples include workshops, conferences, secondments and committees. Internet list servers are

another method of keeping participants within a particular area informed of developments. They

provide an ongoing forum for discussion between face-to-face meetings.

If horizontal partners need to regularly exchange documentation and data, more formal

arrangements may be necessary. Formal structures, in such cases, are designed to provide greater

assurances of consistency, quality and standardization. A good example of this is the decision of

the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat to merge their computer network

infrastructures. There was a recognition that, since both central agencies tend to work on similar

subject matter, new opportunities would result from affording access to each other’s documents

and data. While merging computer networks might be an extreme case, there are more

commonplace examples of joint pools of information (such as shared databases) and creation of

information-sharing protocols.

Sharing Resources to Create New Capabilities

Horizontal initiatives may also require the sharing of work, funding or personnel.

Individual departments internally reorganized to make resources available to the process.


In the case of resource sharing, the appropriate type of support structure often depends on the

particular resource being shared. Partners can donate the work time and personnel to an

initiative on a short-term basis without resorting to formal mechanisms. The sharing of money

and formal secondments typically require administrative and comptrollership support structures

to ensure probity and accountability.

The definitive factor in determining the level of formality is the scale and scope of the initiative.

Large-scale and longer-term movement and sharing of resources have to be documented and

accounted for formally. As the number of participants in an initiative increases, the amount of

formal logistical support must also increase.

Sharing Authority to Improve Decision Making and Collaboration

Authority is often shared within a horizontal initiative to improve the quality of decisions and to

increase “buy in” of the decision-making process. Sharing of authority was described as one of

the most important success factors in many of the cases our Roundtable studied.


The structures used to support the sharing of authority and delegation vary in terms of two

criteria. The first is the fundamental importance of the decisions being made or work being

undertaken. The second is the extent to which partners share mandated resources or authority.

Minor details are usually delegated with only informal assurances to those with effective authority.

In contrast, important issues that cut across statutory mandates are not often shared without

the creation of a joint-accountability framework (see Chapter 2). For example, all horizontal

projects that involve service or program delivery to citizens require formal governance and

accountability structures.

Formal agreements usually must be approved at the ministerial level and are supported by

memorandums to Cabinet. Since authority sharing involves the potential loss of “ministerial

agility,” ministers need advance notice and formal assurances that responsibilities will be

carried out to their satisfaction.

Matching Structure to Life-Cycle Stage

One conclusion from our study of the wide range of structural arrangements is that different

types of structures work better at different stages of an initiative’s life cycle. A number of

leadership challenges are involved in making the right choice.

One of the key challenges in matching the right structure to the right moment is being aware of

the risk of going too far too fast on the one hand, and the risk of missing opportunities to

institutionalize progress on the other.

At a diagnostic stage, machinery is premature. Machinery can displace the emergence of a culture

of horizontal management.


If you wait too long to formalize or institutionalize a

horizontal arrangement, there is a risk that the initiative

will lose momentum and lack resilience. Rural Team New

Brunswick encountered this obstacle because of

excessive staff turnover and the lack of lasting profile

that informal arrangements tend to have.

Continued progress in RTNB’s action areas was not always possible

due to a consistent turnover in membership outside a small

core of dedicated individuals. Departmental representatives need

to be committed for the medium to long term. Horizontal initiatives such as RTNB will need to deal with

a wide array of issues over time and individual departments may not find relevancy with their individual

mandates from time to time, but they need to stay as committed as the active participants.

Rural Team New Brunswick

One of the key challenges in

matching the right structure

to the right moment is being

aware of the risk of going too

far too fast on the one hand, and

the risk of missing opportunities

to institutionalize progress on

the other.


This trade-off suggests that there are windows of

opportunity for adding structural supports. There is no

single developmental path that is right for all initiatives.

Managers need to be acutely sensitive to how the timing

of adding structures can affect momentum.

Using Expert Advice When Creating Structures

Canvassing input from experts and knowledgeable sources was also cited as helping match a

structure to a stage of development. Case studies that involved setting up a new agency

consistently mentioned this fact. Participants not only needed to know how to create an agency

from scratch, but also when all the pieces should be put into place and in what order. Since there

is no recipe for this type of setting up, access to expert advice was seen as crucial.

One challenge was setting up the new agency that takes lots of time and energy. There is nowhere

to go to get support for this. It is also demanding to wind down an entity . . . Since there was no

single source of advice on how to set up the new agency, it was necessary to find expert resources

who knew what was needed to put in place the basic support systems (e.g., financial, materiel,

human resources, informatics, accommodation, telephone, furniture, equipment).

The Leadership Network

These sources of expertise can be built into the process through roundtables and communities

of practice.

Sunset Strategies

Many horizontal initiatives have a “sunset date” or a fixed

end-point when objectives have been achieved. This poses

the challenge of dismantling structures since structures,

almost by definition, have momentum of their own. For

example, staff allocated to an initiative need a place to land

after the job is done, or else resistance to closure may build,

and loyalty may dwindle. Responsibilities and authority, which are often difficult to give up, need

to be reassigned to others. Managers should also take care to rely on structural supports that can

be reallocated fairly easily. Short-term contracts and secondments are examples of tools that fit

this description.

All of these challenges suggest the need to develop an exit strategy early in the process if a horizontal

initiative is expected to exist over a short time horizon. One case-study participant noted that,

contrary to conventional wisdom, winding down an operation actually requires extra work and

resources, and therefore needs to be planned.

There is no single developmental

path that is right for all initiatives.

Managers need to be acutely

sensitive to how the timing

of adding structures can

affect momentum.

Contrary to conventional wisdom,

winding down an operation

actually requires extra work and

resources, and therefore needs

to be planned.

Our Roundtable members stressed that the vast majority of horizontal initiatives include some

form of long-term relationship building. An initiative may not have objectives that are set in

stone, but will instead have goals that evolve and take on new dimensions as the partners

discover new opportunities to work together. One Roundtable member observed that a large

portion of initiatives are not one-off projects at all, but attempts to forge more lasting ties across

organizational boundaries. Even when an initiative does have a strict sunset date, stakeholders

will find value in maintaining ongoing relationships that make future collaboration possible.

Structural supports, in such cases, need to facilitate more enduring contact among partners. One of

the more popular and inexpensive tools is an e-mail-based discussion forum provided through an

Internet list server. For the user, a list server operates like regular e-mail, but is a much more simple

and effective way to share information with a designated group of people on an ongoing basis.

From Building Supportive Structures to Maintaining Momentum

Structures sustain an initiative. They give it form and purpose. But too much structure too soon

can displace the spirit of volunteerism. Too little structure too late can allow commitment to

dissipate. Like all dimensions of horizontal management, matching form to function is a matter

of judgment and will require both flexibility and ingenuity. The challenge is to ensure that new

structures sustain rather than constrain momentum.

As an initiative matures, maintaining momentum can become as great a challenge as mobilizing

teamwork. The challenges are many and the solutions rarely obvious. Players leave. Commitment

can dissipate in the absence of success or visibility. The key challenge is recognizing and managing

the transitions in the life cycle of an initiative. Maintaining momentum, the subject of the next

chapter, is the challenge not so much of building as of sustaining. As such it is often the most

difficult to achieve.



4ChapterMaintaining Momentum

Introduction

The momentum of a horizontal initiative is not sustained

naturally by a system accustomed to operating within vertical

silos. When difficulties are faced, many people revert to what

they know best and perceive as being safe. Roundtable

members believe it is important to emphasize the need for

leadership in maintaining momentum.

The participants in many initiatives could vividly describe the

point when all the pieces clicked into place and a project

that had required a huge exertion of will power developed a

momentum of its own. In some cases there was one specific

meeting where a long process of trust building and discussion

suddenly gelled into a sense of shared purpose. In others,

the turning point occurred over a longer period of time.

A particular set of questions tended to recur in the

Roundtable’s conversations on maintaining the

momentum of an initiative. What was the key turning

point when all the elements of the project clicked into

place and where it developed an unstoppable motion of

its own? How do you reach that point? What are the

variables and how can they be influenced? What do you do to sustain momentum when an

initiative is no longer in the spotlight? How do you handle the inevitable turnover of staff and

participants?

Leadership and Momentum

Frequent mention was made of the need to motivate participants in the initiative. People’s

enthusiasm wanes, other work builds up, and new priorities compete for attention. These factors

all lead to fluctuations in horizontal activity during the life of an initiative. As one presenter put

it to Roundtable members:

The skills, commitment, and motivation of key individuals appear to have been critical to the

success of this initiative. This conclusion is common to many cases of horizontal initiatives.

Having leaders who are personally able to motivate participants was particularly important for

the Team Canada Inc. initiative, since many of the initial motivating factors declined in

significance over time.

Leadership and Momentum . . . . . .33

Identifying a Champion . . . . . . . . . .34

Building on Small Successes . . . . . . . . .35

Managing Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Ensuring Continuous Learning . . . . . .38

Considering Key Tools and Techniques 38

Maintaining Momentum:

Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

The participants in many

initiatives could vividly describe

the point when all the pieces

clicked into place and a project

that had required a huge

exertion of will power developed

a momentum of its own.


Another facet of leadership is the ability to channel information required to keep an initiative

progressing. At a most basic level, this involves encouraging people to communicate continually.

Everyone needs to be kept informed so that they can contribute, as well as remain engaged in

conversation to keep information fresh. As the Voluntary Sector Task Force found, it requires

considerable energy on the part of leaders to act as communication brokers of sorts:

It is highly complicated to manage a horizontal initiative and keep all the same legs running in the

same direction. There are multiple ways to filter information.


A third, and related, leadership ability involves enabling members to integrate a horizontal attitude

into their work. This typically involves helping individuals develop the capabilities to make horizontal

thinking a part of their daily routines. Yet, there is also a need to ensure flexibility, since horizontal

initiatives tend to take place within more dynamic work environments. Promoting “continuous

learning” was a topic Roundtable members raised as a quality that would help participants

maintain the right balance.

Identifying a Champion

Without a champion, an initiative will often flounder and lose momentum. In the case of Team

Canada Inc., the political mandate was clear from the beginning. The Voluntary Sector Task Force

and The Leadership Network are other initiatives with high visibility and support from the

beginning. For initiatives such as the Urban Aboriginal Strategy that were developed “from the

ground up,” gaining a champion was even more important.

The sooner you get senior decision makers involved the better because the tendency to cooperate

is weaker at lower levels, often because of uncertainty regarding the position of senior

management.


The initiative was strongly supported by the Minister who acted as a catalyst.

NRCan’s Regional Lens

Reporting from his interviews of members of federal regional councils, Luc Juillet found

widespread agreement that the support of central agencies had been a significant success factor.

Visible and consistent high-level support contributed to enhancing the credibility of councils,

encouraged members’ participation by recognizing the value of horizontal work, and helped the

councils’ secure the cooperation of other managers in the public service.




But champions can be hard to find — especially when the accountabilities and the

responsibilities for success of a horizontal initiative are diffused by the size of the network and by

the timelines involved.

It has been difficult to engage deputy ministers because an initiative that focuses on relationship

building is fuzzy on the “end game” and deliverables.


Finding a champion is also a key technique for achieving the vital link back into the vertical

structure of the home organization. Without this linkage, action does not happen, resources do

not flow and decisions are not supported. The Roundtable found that the ability to manage this

linkage was often a key test of the success of horizontal management.

Building on Small Successes

Roundtable participants underscored the benefits of

earning a series of small “wins” and building the

opportunity to demonstrate early successes into the

staging of action. This has the effect of motivating

participants and augments the visibility of the project.

This strategy helps to gain the resources and support needed and provides participants with

tangible evidence of the benefits of horizontal cooperation. Small successes help solidify the bonds

between partners by stimulating pride in accomplishment. As one case study participant noted:

. . . it is useful to have early, even if very small, successes to build credibility and trust.

Roundtable member

One critical element of small successes is to set achievable milestones. A larger initiative can be

divided into smaller portions. This is a more straightforward way to track progress for reporting

purposes, and it provides people with manageable short-term objectives. “Start small and work

up from there,” was the conclusion offered by several of the more ambitious cases the

Roundtable looked at.

It is easier to make progress in smaller, targeted areas through pilot projects, as opposed to trying

to start by implementing a national Oceans Management Strategy.

Oceans Act

But it is not enough to simply accomplish project milestones, the results have to be given

visibility and be widely recognized as worthwhile accomplishments. Many cases found that this

type of publicity helped boost the profile of the larger initiative. At any given time, public

servants are bombarded with demands on their time and attention. Nothing seems to hold

people’s attention as strongly and consistently as a story of demonstrated success.

Momentum was fostered by . . . the good visibility of the action plan, ongoing and joint

communications and a special signature for the program.


Earning a series of small “wins”

has the effect of motivating

participants and augments the

visibility of the project.


In many cases, small successes also made it easier to show the benefits of a broader initiative and

to deepen the commitment of participants. This was crucial to the Urban Aboriginal Strategy in

Saskatchewan, particularly given the skepticism that stakeholders brought to the table in this case.

Early successes are important to maintain partnerships. The discussion of the federal

Homelessness Initiative brought a sense of purpose to the value of the protocol — it was a

practical application. A small, successful, multi-partner community project reflecting the value of

cooperation and coordination may have been a better place to start, rather than with the concept

of a “facilitating mechanism,” a more obscure entity. The protocol could then follow, as a means to

legitimize a practical working relationship.


Managing Transitions

One of the central challenges of maintaining momentum lies in managing the transition of an

initiative from stage to stage. Although there is no definitive solution to this challenge, part of

the solution involves remaining focused on the initiative’s objectives. Focusing on objectives

tends to trigger good timing.

Leaders must also adapt to changing roles as the

horizontal initiative evolves. Case study participants

spoke of the need to change gears at various points.

Participants of The Leadership Network, for example,

found that they had to move from a role as strategizers

during the La Relève process to catalysts when

implementing key elements. The challenge of adapting

to transitions was best captured by the experiences of

Team Canada Inc..

When horizontal initiatives are in transition and the initial enabling factors have changed, it may

be useful to conduct an evaluation and possibly redesign the initiative to better fit with changing

conditions. While informality may work well in the initial stage of a horizontal initiative, it may

well be a weakness during a time of transition unless other measures can ease the transition

without jeopardizing the initiative.

Team Canada Inc.

Some Roundtable members underscored the importance of full disclosure to maintaining

momentum during transitions. Participants who harbour hidden agendas risk undermining a

horizontal initiative in such a period of uncertainty. This element of success highlights the value

of establishing trust early in the process and providing open and straightforward assurances of

continued support.

When horizontal initiatives are

in transition and the initial

enabling factors have changed,

it may be useful to conduct an

evaluation and possibly redesign

the initiative to better fit with

changing conditions.


When Key Individuals Leave

One of the most common transitional challenges faced within our case studies involved the problem

of turnover. Core players come and go. Turnover can have a significant impact on levels of trust.

People don’t trust my organization, they trust me.

Roundtable member

When the momentum of a horizontal initiative relies on a small handful of people, there is a risk

that career changes of one or more members may create a severe setback. There can be a loss of

important knowledge and expertise. In such cases, sharing information widely, documenting

lessons learned and continually recruiting new members helped preserve an initiative’s

“memory.” It may also be necessary to take stock of progress and future directions, once new

members are on-board and brought up to speed.

Using Formal Evaluation and Performance Reporting

Evaluation and performance measurement can be used

strategically to maintain momentum, especially when

lessons are used to adapt the initiative appropriately to

changing conditions. These activities — whether through

action plans, business plans or strategic plans — proved a

valuable tool. They support the management of resources,

the identification of accountabilities to Parliament, and

the communication of progress to the public.

A formal evaluation framework may be useful for drawing lessons in a systematic and

disciplined way. However, we do not yet have evaluation tools that can fully assess the value

of horizontal initiatives. Current auditing practice stresses the importance of clear objectives,

results tied to core business lines and clear lines of accountability. Horizontal initiatives are

ambiguous by their nature, which creates a challenge for this type of auditing.

Breaking down results and goals into performance indicators — whether for the purposes of

accountability or for management — can be a significant challenge, especially in the case of a

highly populated network. The Canadian Rural Partnership found this a challenge with

29 participating departments and agencies.

Breaking down results and goals

into performance indicators

— whether for the purposes of

accountability or for management

— can be a significant challenge,

especially in the case of a highly

populated network.


Ensuring Continuous Learning

After an initiative passes a milestone or when it faces a difficult challenge, future success often

depends on the ability of partners to reflect on lessons learned. The key seems to be the ability to

come together as a group and analyze experiences, as well as emerging threats and

opportunities. As members of the Science and Technology Community found:

It is almost a truism to say there should be a provision in any horizontal management

arrangement for learning from experience. The MOU departments are attempting to document

lessons learned, existing collaborative efforts, program gaps and future opportunities. The

experience of the working groups is revealing; where shared interests and working relations are

long standing, “corporate learning” happens.

Science and Technology MOU

Reflection on experiences need not be formal. What seems to be key is that all partners recognize

the method as appropriate, fair and inclusive. Partners usually want assurances that their

experiences and concerns will be taken into account. It is in such cases that dialogue can be a

particularly effective tool.

It was also stressed in Roundtable discussions that there is a need to draw lessons on a continual

basis. Reflecting on experience is not just about post mortem analysis, but about integrating

such analysis into the routine operations of a horizontal initiative. Insights need to be gathered

in a timely fashion so that they can be used by partners to move the initiative forward.

Considering Key Tools and Techniques: Communications, Money and Deadlines

Case study researchers were asked to identify those factors that most likely could make or break

the momentum of an initiative. The Roundtable was struck by how common three particular

success factors were among the cases.

Good Communications

Good communications have several dimensions. Participants need to be candid and forthcoming

with information. Full disclosure and transparency were crucial, so long as they did not interfere

with the need to safeguard confidential information. Openness was necessary, but not sufficient.

Partners also had to develop a warm yet professional rapport.

Being continually informed of key developments is vital, particularly during difficult transitions.

While the amount and thoroughness of the information provided are important, so is the means

of communications. Participants need to have the opportunity to engage in face-to-face

conversation.


The Right Money — at the Right Time

Money was found to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, money can cause members to

lose sight of objectives and it can provoke a struggle over resources and turf that can derail a

project. On the other hand, money can contribute significantly to an initiative’s capacity. A lack of

money can cause partners to set the bar lower in their expectations of what is possible.

Timing seems to be a key variable in using money successfully. As one case participant put it:

“Money helps, perhaps not always at the beginning of the process.” If money precedes the

development of trust, commitment to shared goals and an agenda, then problems result. Several

case participants stressed this lesson:

If the project had started with a pot of money, it would have failed at the beginning. The focus

would have been on sharing the funding. Instead we identified gaps and then developed strategies

to overcome them.


It is important to build trust and find solutions and have early, small successes before bringing

substantial funding to the table.


Money can set in motion a dynamic that differs considerably depending on the type of initiative.

It can be a strong motivator, as one case participant noted: “Without the money our partners

would not have been there.” At other times, partners are more motivated by good will and a

perceived value in building understanding and a common framework. In such cases, the

availability of money can often be an impediment to more profound collaboration.

The first year of Team Canada Inc. illustrates how the lack of money was a motivator. It compelled

partners to search for ways of collaborating.

The lack of resources encouraged people to work together. The first reaction to the possibility of

new resources seems to be to go it alone and no longer work as a team.

Team Canada Inc.

A similar finding was reported by the Voluntary Sector Task Force, which found that stakeholders

were just as anxious to participate in order to develop the opportunity to network and share. The

success of early horizontal networking actually became the impetus for funding later on.

When the initiative first started out, it was not clear whether money would be on the table. People

stayed because of the potential to develop new relationships and to develop mechanisms to work

together on policy development. As a result of the policy exploration level, ministers approved a

$94.6 million initiative to take action in three key areas: building the relationship, strengthening

the sector’s capacity and improving the regulatory framework.



The use of mechanisms to facilitate the sharing of financial resources was also central to success.

In the case of the St. Lawrence Action Plan, the use of an official Canada-Quebec agreement and

the transfer of funds to other federal departments for joint projects contributed to securing buy-

in. Such a strategy is more complicated when there is a broader range of partners. The difficulty

of sharing financial resources remains among the most significant obstacles to horizontal

initiatives today.

Using Deadlines to Motivate Action

A third success factor was shared deadlines. A well-defined timeline outlining an agenda for

action was a very powerful tool for managing a horizontal project. Development of timelines and

schedules can provide a focal point for negotiating effort and resources. Externally generated

deadlines could also impose a common schedule.

Common deadlines and a short time frame were a critical factor. It was helpful to have an imposed

(World Trade Organization) deadline, because it focused everyone’s attention and because there

was no way to slip it.


The timing and the people were very important in establishing the first action plan. Pressure was

high from non-government organizations. The provincial Minister of the Environment was

interested. There was a coming together of the right individuals, external forces and a pressing

environmental problem.


At the same time, unrealistic deadlines can be de-motivating and partners need to know how to set

sensible workloads. Partners need to be aware of the point at which taking on new responsibilities

might lead to overload and burn out.

Maintaining Momentum: Final Thoughts

As an initiative evolves — like any system — it requires the constant infusion of energy. Thus it

depends centrally on the ability to develop new teams and networks. A sense of ongoing vision

and a sense of the possibilities of what can be accomplished are also important to bridge the

inevitable turf battles into which a stale initiative can descend. This returns to the themes that

were identified at the beginning of this report. Success demands leadership which is supple and

sensitive to shifts in terrain — to changes in mood of participants and of political circumstance;

it demands an ongoing culture of trust, fortified by shared commitment and understanding; and

finally it demands roots in the interests and mandate and resources of home organizations

because accountabilities — however challenging — are the life blood of public sector work.

Conclusion

Working across organizational boundaries is not new. But the changing context for public service

leadership makes horizontal management a more frequent challenge, and it makes it more

important to do it well. The time has come to systematically conduct an inventory of our

knowledge about the elements of successful horizontal management.

The Roundtable’s contribution to this effort has been to distil wisdom from the experiences of

participants in a variety of horizontal initiatives. These insights are a valuable starting point for

public sector managers, whether contemplating a horizontal initiative or conducting a mid-term

evaluation. But they can only be a beginning — the diversity within horizontal management

means that managers must exercise judgment in applying these lessons to their own unique

horizontal initiatives.

Clearly, the critical elements of horizontal management are

cohesive and motivated teams, the development of a

shared framework, the judicious use of structures to

provide resilience and support, and a continuous

momentum. At the end of the day, however, the success of

horizontal management comes down to people. Other

factors can enable and support horizontal management,

but ultimately it is leadership, commitment, and

enthusiasm that make the difference.


Working horizontally should

be a natural reflex for public

servants rather than

something extraordinary.



Appendix 1: Overview of Case Studies and Case Contacts Below are short descriptions — drawn from Roundtable presentations, case studies, and Web

pages — of the case studies that helped inform the findings of this report. A contact person is

provided for each case.

If an asterisk (*) appears next to the title of a case, the full text is available on CCMD’s Web site at

www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca.

* Oceans Act

The Oceans Act came into force on January 31, 1997. The purpose of the Act is to put in place a

legislative framework for the sustainable management and use of Canada’s ocean resources.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is accountable for the implementation of the Oceans

Management Strategy, which must be developed in consultation with other federal departments,

other governments and stakeholders.

Sally Scott

Tel.: 613 993-6992

Fax: 613 990-9574

E-mail: [email protected]


This case involved the challenge of balancing cultural policy objectives (support for Canadian

content) with trade policy objectives (support for a rules-based trading system). The U.S.

challenged Canadian measures before the World Trade Organization, which ruled that Canada

had 15 months to implement a new policy. Canadian Heritage had to develop this policy by

working horizontally with many other departments because all the levers to deal with the issue

were not in their own department.

Don Stephenson (DFAIT)

Tel.: 613 944-2002

Fax: 613 996-1667



GeoConnections, Natural Resources Canada’s Regional Lens Approach

GeoConnections, an NRCan-led national partnership supported by federalagencies, all provincial

and territorial governments, the private sector and the academic community, is a five-year

project to make geographic information accessible on the Internet.

NRCan’s regional lens approach provides: (1) integrated analysis of regional issues, challenges and

opportunities as they pertain to the sustainable development of natural resources; (2) enhanced

coordination and communication with regional agencies, regional councils and regional forums,

to support and promote NRCan’s horizontal engagement both federally and provincially; (3)

regionally-focused policy research; (4) support for engagement on horizontal regional initiatives

and partnerships; and (5) on-line access to information and knowledge through a ’regional lens’

window on the National Atlas (GeoConnections) and NRCan On-Line.

Stephen Lucas

Tel.: 613 947-1595

Fax: 613 947-5977


Medium-Term and Transition Planning

The process of planning for the Government’s agenda has opened up considerably over the past

five years. In 1997, in recognition of the horizontal nature of many issues, the process itself

became more horizontal, collaborative and open. The 1999 Medium-Term Planning exercise built

on this foundation, and input was sought and received from an even wider range of

departments and officials at many levels. Nine DM-led working groups and the corresponding

“cascade” effect provided input to PCO in developing strategic advice and options for the second

half of the Government’s mandate.

Marian Campbell Jarvis (PCO)

Tel.: 613 957-5468

Fax: 613 957-5487


National Children’s Agenda

Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments have been working together to develop

the National Children’s Agenda (NCA). As a first step in the development of the NCA, governments

have agreed on a shared vision for Canada’s children. The vision sets out broad goals for children,

and suggests ways Canadians can work together to achieve these goals. It also suggests policy areas

where governments can work together to improve the well-being of children. One of these areas

— support for early childhood development — is the subject of a recent federal-provincial-territorial

agreement that will see improvement and expansion of services for young children and their

families. Finally, under the NCA, governments have agreed to work together to measure and monitor

children’s progress and to share information on effective practices for children and families.

Kathryn McDade (HRDC)

Tel.:819-953-9359;

Fax: 819-994-1506;


New Brunswick Federal Council

* Canada Pavilion at the Village de la francophonie

The New Brunswick Federal Council, recognizing the VIIIe Sommet de la francophonie 1999 as a

unique opportunity for the Government of Canada to showcase its wide range of services, asked

the N.B. Federal Communications Council to examine the possibilities of such a project.

Once it was agreed that the project would go ahead, the Village de la francophonie was

identified as the best venue as it was a gathering place for the general public. The goal was to

showcase the Acadian, Canadian and international Francophonie and offer the public a place to

celebrate the contributions of the Francophonie to the world. In total, 28 federal departments,

agencies and corporations were represented in the Canada Pavilion.

* Integrated Regional Economic Development Work Plans

Integrated regional economic development work plans were initiated in New Brunswick to

encourage key partners involvement in economic development at the local level to develop their

annual work plans on an integrated basis. The purpose of this initiative is to encourage economic

development partners at the local level to approach the development of their regions from a

comprehensive and strategic perspective, work together, coordinate their activities better, be

accountable and decrease overlap and duplication.

* Joint Economic Development Initiative (JEDI)

The JEDI is a tripartite process that was implemented by Aboriginal communities and federal and

provincial governments to identify and encourage projects aimed at stimulating economic

development in Aboriginal communities within New Brunswick. Its purpose is to create a forum

that would lay the foundation for open dialogue between Aboriginal peoples and

federal/provincial representatives so as to facilitate access to both government and programs.



* New Brunswick Joint Adjustment Committee (JAC)

The 1995 federal Budget announced a major Program Review initiative aimed at reducing the

overall size of the Public Service of Canada by 45,000 positions. Heads of the bargaining units

and the Treasury Board Secretariat met to discuss a possible joint approach to labour market

adjustment. On May 30, 1995, an agreement-in-principle concerning workforce adjustment in the

Public Service of Canada was signed. It established the mandate of the National and Regional

Joint Adjustment committees. The fundamental mandate of the JAC was to facilitate a joint

process to deal with workplace challenges presented by a major downsizing (and in the process,

assist employees in making informed transitions).

* Rural Team New Brunswick (RTNB)

The RTNB was formed in 1999 as a result of the Canadian Rural Partnership (CRP) dialogue

process in 1997–98. The group was formed to review and identify actions in response to this

dialogue. RTNB undertook a strategic planning process in the spring of 1999, followed by a work-

planning session in September of the same year. Of the 11 priority areas identified for action by

the Government of Canada, three were chosen by RTNB for action in the short term. They are:

➢ improve access by rural communities to government programs and services;

➢ improve access to financial resources for rural business and community development;

and

➢ strengthen rural community capacity building, leadership and skills development.

Alison Aiton (Contact for all New Brunswick Federal Council cases)

Tel.: 506 444-6144

Fax: 506 452-2447


* Policy Research Initiative: The Trends Project

The Trends Project, a collaborative effort of the Policy Research Initiative (PRI) and the Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), is a new and innovative model for the federal

government to engage the academic community to provide insight into the major forces of

change that will affect Canadian policy making in the medium term.

The project is an experiment in the use of a Canada-wide multidisciplinary team approach to

policy research. Under the project, academics, think tanks and government officials worked in

partnership to identify knowledge gaps requiring further research on eight broad trends. This

research has been presented and discussed at numerous workshops and conferences across the

country, and it was showcased at the annual National Policy Research Conference in November

1999.

Louise Boyer

Tel.: 613 943-1997

Fax: 613 995-6006



* Science and Technology Memorandum of Understanding for Sustainable Development

The Memorandum of Understanding on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development

was signed in 1995 by four departments (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment

Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Natural Resources Canada). With the memorandum’s

renewal in 1998, Health Canada became a signatory. All signatories view the MOU as a

mechanism to further collaborative science on priority issues. While the amount of collaborative

research conducted under the aegis of the MOU has been limited, it has nonetheless fostered a

level of cooperation and trust that all its signatories have come to value.

Alka Steenkamer

Tel.: 819 994-4121

Fax: 819 953-0550


* St. Lawrence Action Plan (SLAP)

The St. Lawrence Action Plan (1988–2003) involves the conservation and protection of the St.

Lawrence River ecosystem. The complexity of this task is only realized when one considers the

large number of organizations that have jurisdiction over certain aspects affecting the St.

Lawrence ecosystem, as well as the number of often conflicting uses that are associated with the

river. Federal and provincial organizations, as well as non-governmental partners, have been

involved in this project.

Madeleine Papineau

Tel.: 418 648-4321

Fax: 418 649-6213


* Swissair Flight 111 — Search and Rescue Phase

By Cabinet directive adopted on June 18, 1947, and in 1951, the Department of National Defence

(DND) was given the responsibility for effective operation of the coordinated aeronautical and

maritime Search and Rescue system within the Canadian Region. In this case, DND’s involvement

began when they received a first call from the Area Control Centre (ACC) in Moncton (Wednesday,

September 2, 1998, at 10:18 p.m.) and ended 36 hours later (Friday, September 4 at 10:30 a.m.)

when all avenues had been explored and ACC was forced to abandon hope of finding any

survivors. This case describes the coordination of the Search and Rescue operations.

Major Michel Brisebois

Tel.: 902 427-2104

Fax: 902 427-2483



* Team Canada Inc.

Team Canada Inc is a partnership of 23 federal departments and agencies helping companies

succeed in world markets. The organization strives to meet private sector demand for faster,

easier, less duplicative and more comprehensive access to government export-related

services, both within and outside Canada.

Brian Oak (DFAIT)

Tel.: 613 996-1775

Fax: 613 943-8819


* Urban Aboriginal Strategy in Saskatchewan

The Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS) is a federal initiative led by Minister Goodale as the Federal

Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians. It is designed to address the socio-economic needs

of urban Aboriginal peoples at risk, in partnership with all stakeholders, by refocusing federal

involvement without compromising the federal position for responsibility for urban Aboriginal

peoples.

Randy Winnitowy

Tel.: 306 975-5940

Fax: 306 975-5484


* Voluntary Sector Task Force

In June 1997, an ADM steering committee was put in place to respond to commitments made in

Red Book II to have a better engagement of the voluntary sector. In June 1998, a small group (the

Voluntary Sector Task Force) was created in the Privy Council Office to support the ADM steering

committee. In developing policy advice on how to have a better engagement of the sector, the

new relationship was modeled on a process called Joint Tables. The Joint Tables process involved

leaders from across the federal government and a wide assortment of voluntary sector

organizations, allowing both vertical and horizontal coordination of work and communications.

The Joint Tables process resulted in a comprehensive strategy called the Voluntary Sector

Initiative, which was launched in June 2000 with a budget of $94.6 million. The strategy’s goals

are to improve the quality of life of Canadians by creating a better relationship between the

government and the voluntary sector by strengthening the capacity of the sector to meet

society’s demands, and by improving government’s policies and programs.

Susan Fletcher (PCO)

Tel.: 613 943-2760

Fax: 613 943-2766



Appendix 2: Additional Resources

Reports of the Action-Research Roundtable

The following reports are available on CCMD’s Web site at www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca

Management of Horizontal Issues: An Annotated Bibliography looks at books and articles

published between 1996 and 2000 that are relevant to horizontal management.

Case Study Report analyzes 13 case studies, looking at such issues as identification of initial

success factors, barriers, and lessons learned.

Guide on Building Dialogues on Horizontality was generated by Environment Canada with input

from the satellite overview event that the department hosted. This is a self-help guide designed

to assist public servants conduct dialogues on working horizontally. It uses case studies to help

participants address real-life challenges.

The Federal Regional Councils and Horizontal Governance was submitted by the Regional Councils

and Treasury Board Secretariat. The report examines the evolving role that federal regional

councils play in the management of horizontal issues.

Report on Governance, Accountability and Horizontality was submitted by Treasury Board

Secretariat and addresses several of the emerging issues surrounding the challenges faced when

managing horizontally. It situates results-based management and accountability as well as an

enhanced role for Treasury Board ministers in horizontal management.

Other Relevant Books

The following titles do not explicitly address the topic of horizontal management.

Fisher,Roger, and Alan Sharp. Getting It Done — How to Lead When You’re Not in Charge. Harper

Perennial, 1998.

Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes — Negotiating Agreement Without

Giving In. Penguin Books, 1991.

McRae,Brad. Negotiating and Influencing Skills — The Art of Creating and Claiming Value.

Sage Publications, 1997.

Susskind,Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. Breaking the Impasse — Consensual Approaches to

Resolving Public Disputes. Basic Books, Inc, 1987.

Web Sites

The following Web sites provide useful information and resources on horizontal issues.

Canadian Centre For Management Development

http://www.ccmd-ccg.gc.ca

Human Resources Development Canada Web site

The partnership handbook

http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/common/partners/partner.shtml

Leadership Network

http://www.leadership.gc.ca/menu_e.asp

Office of the Auditor General

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/

Policy Research Initiative

http://policyresearch.gc.ca

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Web site

TBS Web site: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca

Guide for the Development of Results-based Management and Accountability Frameworks

(forthcoming)

Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/home_e.html



Appendix 3: An Accountability Checklist (TBS)

Partners understand and agree on:

Identifying Results

objectives, key results

and strategic priorities

roles and

responsibilities

balanced performance

expectations

Measuring Performance

a performance measurement strategy

a set of indicators for

the short, medium and

long term

dispute resolution and

appeals/complaints

practices

Reporting

provisions for balancedpublic reporting

reporting that is

transparent, open,

credible and timely

sharing — lessons

learned

Partners should:

• involve citizens and clients in defining key results, state what they

are and show links to objectives

• publish results, eligibility criteria and service-level commitments

• focus on outcomes (vs. process, activities and outputs)

• define what each party is expected to contribute to achieve the

outcomes

• publicly recognize and explain the role and contribution of each partner

• respect public sector values and conflict of interest issues

• clearly link performance expectations to the capacities (authorities,

skills, knowledge and resources) of each partner to ensure that

expectations are realistic

• identify appropriate monitoring approach and review tools

• use common databases where possible and share information

• factor in performance and contextual information from external

sources (e.g., societal indicators for broader context)

• invest in necessary information management/information

technology systems

• identify indicators to measure progress on objectives and results

(“indicators” means what measurement tool will be used to

demonstrate performance)

• develop comparative and societal indicators where possible

• establish an approach to corrective action if partners’ responsibilities

are not fulfilled or when adjustments are needed to address citizens’

complaints

• identify the reporting strategy early in the initiative

• consider incorporating performance information into

existing reports (e.g., DPRs)

• report publicly on citizens’ appeals and complaints, and ensure

confidentiality and privacy needs are met

• use all forms of performance evidence to support reporting

• provide easy public access to information

• link costs to results where possible

• use independent assessments

• track lessons learned and good practices and publish them

• establish mechanisms for improvements and innovations

1Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat, Managing For Results 2000.



Appendix 4: Horizontal Management Mechanisms

of the Federal Government2

An increasing number of the issues addressed by the Government of Canada cut across the

responsibilities of several (or all) federal departments and agencies. Many of these “horizontal

issues” also impinge upon the responsibilities or interests of other levels of government, as well

as those of the private or voluntary sectors. To manage such crosscutting issues, a variety of

coordinating mechanisms have been developed.

The accompanying table provides basic information on a sample of 14 such horizontal

mechanisms involving the federal government. The examples show that there are substantial

differences in approaches among the various mechanisms. Nevertheless, one can discern some

basic models, which might be summarized as follows:

1. Coordination Arrangement

Federal departments or agencies (and possibly other partners) come together to coordinate and

catalyze their respective efforts in a field of common interest. Minimal resources are devoted to

the mechanism itself, which may consist of a simple memorandum of understanding and

coordinating committee, plus mechanisms (such as working groups) for joint work and

communication.

2. Secretariat for a Federal Horizontal Initiative

The primary participants are federal departments and agencies (though there may be secondary

partnerships with outside organizations). The purpose is to address an issue that affects several

(or all) parts of the federal government. A secretariat or similar group is formally established to

manage and support the initiative. Resources may be formally allocated directly or through a

host department, or borrowed through a “virtual” arrangement. Responsibility may reside with a

lead department or within PCO or TBS.

3. Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement

The arrangement involves the federal government with governments or agencies at other levels

(provincial/territorial, municipal). The purpose is to address an important issue that crosses

jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., environment, urban problems). Partners enter into a formal

agreement committing their own resources to the initiative and accepting a specified

coordinating or decision-making mechanism.

4. Network for Service or Shared Goals

Through cooperation among several parties, including the federal government, services are

delivered to the public or to a defined sector (such as business), or shared goals are pursued

jointly (e.g., international trade promotion). The initiative may involve significant federal

resources as well as commitments in cash or kind by other parties, such as the private sector. The

federal government provides leadership and coordination.

2This material was produced by the Sussex Circle Consulting Group

5. Forum for Broad Policy Advice/Development

Participants may include federal agencies, other levels of government, universities, private or

voluntary sector organizations, and individual experts. The purpose is to provide advice to

government or, more broadly, to decision-makers and the public on a major issue such as

sustainable development. A secretariat supports the consultative and deliberative mechanisms.

Resources are generally provided by the federal government, but the organization operates with

a considerable degree of autonomy.


Lesso

ns Le

ar

ned

fro

m Le

ad

ing

Ho

riz

on

ta

l Pr

oje

ct

s5

5

Horizontal Coordination Mechanisms of the Government of Canada: Examples

Mandate

To help build astronger knowledgebase on the complexissues facing Canadain the future by:

• developing astronger base oflonger-term policyresearch oncrosscutting issues;

• building policyresearch capacity;

• strengtheningpartnership in thepolicy researchcommunity.

To provideleadership,coordination andsupport to the cross-governmentCanadian RuralPartnership.

Participants andPartners

30+ federaldepartments andagencies

othergovernments,academicinstitutions, thinktanks and others.

Participants:28 federaldepartmentsand agencies plusrural teams ineach provinceand territory.

Activities

Deepening andacceleratingresearch onemerging issues andintegrating resultsinto the policydebate.

Developingstrategies toimprove policyresearch capacityin Canada.

Helping the policyresearch communityshare knowledge andcollaborate throughpublications andevents, workshops,conferences, semi-nars and awards.

Pilot projects, ruraldialogue, informationoutreach,“Rural Lens”on federal policies.

Organizational Statusand Location

An independentorganizationadministrativelyaffiliated with PCO.

Part of the sameBusiness Line ascommissions, inquiriesand task forces.

Rural Secretariat is adivision of Agricultureand Agri-Food Canada.

Governance and Advice

Vertical accountability:Executive Director reports totwo co-chairs (DMs), whoreport in turn to the Clerk ofthe Privy Council.

Co-chairs also provide periodicupdates to, and receive directionfrom, CCDM — Policy.

Horizontal accountability:provided through numerousadvisory committees onindividual projects.

Minister of Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada is alsoMinister Coordinating RuralAffairs. Assisted by theSecretary of State (RuralDevelopment).

Advice and coordination byinterdepartmental workinggroup of officials.

Resources

Secretariat hasabout 35 staffmembers.

Annual funding $4.4 million.

$20 million overfour years.

Duration

PRI was createdin 1997.

Indefinite term.

Initiative launchedin 1998. Plannedduration four years.

Mechanism(Initiative)

01 PolicyResearchInitiative (PRI)

02 RuralSecretariat(CanadianRuralPartnership)

56

Mo

vin

g fr

om

th

e H

er

oic

to

th

e e

ver

yd

ay


Mandate

To provide supportfor the developmentof ongoing integratedadvice to the federalgovernment on thestrategic positioningof the governmentover a wide range ofbiotechnology issuesand sectors.

To manage theCanadianBiotechnologyStrategy Fund

To support theCanadian BiotechAdvisory Committee(CBAC)


Participants: DMsof 7 federaldepartments (IC, HC, AAFC, EC,F&O, DFAIT,NRCan)

ADMs of sameplus NRC, grantingcouncils, CFIA

Partners includeprovinces,territories,industry,academia,consumers,environmentalgroups, otherinterested parties.Partners arereached mostlythroughdepartmentsand agencies,not directly byCBSec.

Activities

Coordinatedevelopment offederal biotechstrategy, monitorand report onimplementation.

Support committeesof ministers, DMs,ADMs

Lead ad hoc andpermanentcommittees onspecific themes [e.g., govt-widecommunicationsstrategy]

Provide adviceon policy andcommunications.

Support CBAC inconsulting andproviding advice.


Secretariat isindependent, servingthe Biotech group ofdepartments.

Located withinIndustry Canadafor administrativepurposes. Approvedby Cabinet and PMin 1998


Committee of 7 ministers,committee of DMs, committeeof ADMs. working groups onspecific themes.

CBAC provides advice onbiotech issues tobiotechnology ministers’coordinating committee.

Resources

Secretariat has up to10 professional staff.

Budget is providedfrom the CBSec fundthough IndustryCanada estimates.

Total budget,including staffsalaries andoverhead levies forpolicy coordinationwork, is $750K peryear for CBSec and$2.3M per yearfor CBAC.

Duration

Canadian BiotechStrategy wasrenewed in 1998.The Secretariat,coordinatingcommittees ofministers, DMs andADMs , and CBACwere established bythe PM at that time.Duration indefinite.


03 CanadianBiotechnologySecretariat

Lesso

ns Le

ar

ned

fro

m Le

ad

ing

Ho

riz

on

ta

l Pr

oje

ct

s5

7


Mandate

To coordinate thedevelopment andimplementation ofa national climatechange strategyfor Canada withsupport acrossjurisdictions andamong stakeholders.

Undertake policyand analytical workto enable a decisionon ratification of theKyoto Protocol.

To promote, developand supportnetworks of leadersthroughout thePublic Service ofCanada, and To assist them in theongoing challenge ofpublic servicerenewal.


Federalcoordination:12 federaldepartments andagencies.

Nationalcoordination:F/P/Tgovernments (led by ministriesof energy andenvironmentbut with otherdepartmentsand agencies).

Stakeholderadvisorycomponent:16 Issue Tables,involving 450 stakeholdersfrom government,industry, academiaand NGOs.

TLN develops closepartnerships andhorizontal linkswith departments,agencies, federalregional councils,functionalcommunities,the PCO, PSC, TBS,and CCMD.

Activities

Federal Secretariat:Coordination andintegration offederal climatechange policy andprogram-ming.

Management ofparticipatory,decision-makingprocess amongdepartments andagencies.

National Secretariat:Coordination andintegration ofnational policy andprogramming.Management ofnational stakeholderadvisory componentand publicengagement.

Career and advisoryservices for the ADMcommunity.

Assistance to federalentities inimplementing publicservice renewal byproviding leadership,guidance and support

Promotion foremergence of newleadership networksand nurturingexisting onesthrough innovativeuse of technology


Federal Secretariat isa project within thefederal government,has no legal standingand performs similarcoordination functionsas a central agency.NRCan is the “platform”department, providingsupport.

National Secretariat wascreated by F/P/T energyand environmentministers and is jointlymanaged and fundedby the participants.

The LeadershipNetwork is an agencylocated in Ottawa.

Reports to the PrimeMinister through thePrivy Council Office.


Federal Secretariat reportsjointly to DMs of NRCan andEnvironment and advises asteering committee of federalDMs, co-chaired by DMs of ECand NRCan, on federal andnational issues.

National Secretariat advisesNational Air Issues SteeringCommittee (F/P/T DMs ofenergy and environment) onnational issues.

Agency headed by a deputyminister.

Resources

Federal Secretariathas 25 employeesseconded fromdepartments andagencies

National Secretariatis cost-shared virtualoffice model withfederal and provincialemployees operatingfrom their existingoffices mostlythrough electronicconnections.

Funding fromClimate ChangeAction Fund inNRCan Estimates (A-Base ofconvenience)

Resources 2000–01:$12 million, 53 FTE

Duration

Secretariat createdin 1998, by the PrimeMinister followingKyoto 1997.

Funding for theClimate ChangeAction Fundextended to April 1,2004, in Budget2000.

The Issue Tablesconcluded theirwork in Dec. 1999and providedvaluable input intothe development ofa national strategyand first businessplan of action.

Created for twoyears in 1998.

Extended untilJune 3, 2001.


04 ClimateChangeSecretariat(National AirIssues Co-ordinatingMechanismand NationalClimate ChangeProcess)

Composed ofa “federalsecretariat” anda “nationalsecretariat.”

05 TheLeadershipNetwork (TLN)(CanadianRuralPartnership)

58

Mo

vin

g fr

om

th

e H

er

oic

to

th

e e

ver

yd

ay


Mandate

To increase thecapacity of thevoluntary sector inmeeting the demandsCanadian societyplaces on it

To improvegovernment policies,programs andservices toCanadians.

To supportsustainableeconomic, social andcommunitydevelopment inVancouver. Initialfocus is onDowntown Eastside.

Themes: communityhealth and safety,economic and socialdevelopment,community capacitybuilding.

Legislated byParliament in 1994to explain andpromote sustainabledevelopment, NTREEprovides decisionmakers, opinionleaders and theCanadian publicwith independentadvice andrecommendationsfor promotingsustainabledevelopment.


Participants:Over 22 federaldepartments andagencies.

Task Force worksin partnershipwith voluntarysectororganizations andVoluntary SectorRound Table

Government ofCanada, Provinceof B.C., City ofVancouver.

DistinguishedCanadiansappointed by thePrime Minister ofCanada. Membersrepresent a broadrange of regionsand sectors,includingbusiness, labour,academia,environmentalorganizations andFirst Nations.

Activities

Horizontal policydevelopment acrossgovernment;coordination,consultation,communication, andpartnership acrossgovernment;development of theAccord betweengovernment andvoluntary sector.

Activities to addresssocial, economic,health and safetyissues, such as:treatment forsubstance abusers;improved policing;strengthened drugenforcement; streetimprovement (e.g.,graffiti clean-up,needle pick-up).

Working withstakeholders acrossCanada, NRTEE:commissionsresearch, conductsconsultations,reports onagreements anddisagreements, andrecommends how topromotesustainability,balancing prosperitywith environmentalpreservation.


Voluntary Sector TaskForce was set up tosupport developmentof Voluntary SectorInitiative. Operatesjointly with voluntarysector.

Task Force Secretariat islocated within PCO. Nota separate agency.

Legally bindingagreement signed byfederal, provincial andcity governments.Virtual organizations ornetworks of the partnersat working level.

NRTEE is adepartmentalcorporation reportingto Parliament throughthe Prime Minister.Liaison is maintainedthrough PCO. NRTEEworks withdepartments andagencies asappropriate.


Reference Group of Ministersprovides strategic policydirection and coordination.Manages relations withvoluntary sector and overseesdevelopment of the Accord.

ADM Steering Committee (22 members) providesoperational leadership to theInitiative and guidance to theVoluntary Sector Task Force.

Federal Minister of WesternDevelopment.

B.C. Minister of CommunityDevelopment.

Mayor of Vancouver.

Management Committee: 3members from each partnerjurisdiction.

Working Group: 2 officialsfrom each partner.

Activities are organized intoprograms, each overseen by atask force of NRTEE membersand representatives frombusiness, government andnon-profit organizations.

NRTEE members meetquarterly to review progress,establish future priorities, startnew programs, and endorserecommendations to becontained in final reports.

Resources

$10 million allocatedfor the Accord andrelationship-buildingmeasures out of total$92 million for VSI.

Total investmentplanned to date:$13.9 million.

NRTEE has ownEstimates. Budget of$4.3 million in FY2000–01.Approximately 22staff.

Duration

Task Force set upin 1998.

Current mandateruns to 2002.

Five-yearagreement signedMarch 9, 2000.

First phaseannouncedSeptember 29, 2000.

Established 1994.Ongoing.


06 VoluntarySector TaskForce(VoluntarySector Initiative— VSI)

07 VancouverAgreement(DowntownEastside)

08 NationalRoundtable onEnvironmentand Economy(NRTEE)

Lesso

ns Le

ar

ned

fro

m Le

ad

ing

Ho

riz

on

ta

l Pr

oje

ct

s59


Mandate

To prepare Canadianinformationtechnology systemsfor risks associatedwith change incalendar year 2000by:

• coordinatinginternalgovernmentalprogress;

• coordinatingexternal activities,including surveys ofbusiness readinessfor Y2K.

To optimize the useof S&T to advancesustainabledevelopment goalsby facilitatingintegrated programplanning,development,evaluation of issuesand problemresolution.


Led by TreasuryBoard, Industry,Foreign Affairsand NationalDefence.

All federaldepartments andagencies involved.

Cooperation withprovinces andterritories andprivate sector.

“5NR”departments:Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada;EnvironmentCanada; Fisheriesand OceansCanada, NaturalResources Canada;Health Canada(joined in 1998).

Activities

Monitor and reporton departmentalprogress.

Coordinate actionsto minimizedisruption.

Coordinate Y2K-related activitiesexternal togovernment.

Working groupsactive in identifyingknowledge gaps,establishing jointagendas, producingsubstantive reportsand scienceassessments,developingpartnerships amongparticipants andother interestedstakeholders, andcommunicatingfederal science.

Major issues:(1) Science forSustainableDevelopment(2) S&T Strategy (3) Science Policy,(4) Communicationof Science


Organizationally,Secretariat was locatedwithin Treasury BoardSecretariat.

Functioned as separateorganization. Nolegislative basis.

Related private sectorTask Force, chaired byJean Monty, CEO ofBCE, reported toMinister of Industry.

Mechanism shared bythe participatingdepartments. No legalstatus.

The MOU demonstratescommitment of the5NR departments tocollaborate on scienceissues in order toadvance sustainabledevelopment.


Initiative led by ministers ofTreasury Board, Industry,Foreign Affairs and NationalDefence.

Activities are reported annuallyby 5NR DMs to Clerk of thePrivy Council.

ADM Steering Committeeprovides leadership anddirection (chair rotates amongmembers).

Operational collaborationthough DG Committee.

Working group activities arekey to collaborative science.

Resources

Total federalgovernment cost ofY2K estimated at$1.9 billion.

Working groupactivities primarilyfunded byparticipatingdepartments on anissue by issue basis.Some 5NR workinggroups have beenable to secureconsistent fundingfor their initiatives,either from thirdparties or the 5NRdepartments (e.g., oncommunications).

Duration

Established insummer 1998.

Delivered finalreport in July 2000.

Any residualresponsibilities arenow with ChiefInformation OfficeBranch of TBS.

MOU is for threeyears, renewable.

Original MOU signedin 1995, renewed in1998.


09 Year 2000Project Office

10 MOU onScience andTechnology forSustainableDevelopment(and associatedworkinggroups)

60

Mo

vin

g fr

om

th

e H

er

oic

to

th

e e

ver

yd

ay


Mandate

To conserve, protectand restore the useof the St. Lawrenceecosystem with aview to ensuringsustainabledevelopment.

Main goals are:protect ecosystemhealth, protecthuman health andinvolve riversidecommunities inhelping to make theSt. Lawrence moreaccessible and recoverits former uses.

To provide advice tothe Minister forInternational Tradeon federal policypertaining to tradein various industrysectors.


8 federalgovernmentdepartments: EC,AAFC, CED, PCH,F&O, HC, TC,PWGSC.

5 Quebecgovernmentdepartments.

Partnerships withnumerouscommunitygroups, NGOs,private sector anduniversity/research centresector.

SAGITs areestablished in 12industry sectors.

Members: seniorbusinessexecutives,representativesfrom industryassociations,labour,environment andacademia.

Members serve intheir individualcapacities.Appointed fortwo-year(renewable) term,by the Minister forIntl. Trade.

Activities

Involve communitiesin environmentalprojects. Partnershipprojects to conserveBiodiversity, toreduce theenvironmentalimpacts of theagricultural,industrial, municipaland shipping sectorsand to reducehuman health risksassociated withwater use.

Each SAGIT meetsthree to four timesannually.

SAGITs providechannels for openexchange of ideasand informationbetween industrysectors andgovernment ontrade-related issues,using face-to-facemeetings,conference calls,and electronicconsultationmechanisms.


Agreement betweenCanada and Quebec.

Environment Canadaresponsible forCanada’s side of theagreement.

The SAGIT structure issupported by advisorsfrom the Trade PolicyConsultations andLiaison Division of theDepartment of ForeignAffairs andInternational Trade.


Committees of F/Pdepartments (AgreementManagement Committee andCoordination Committees)work on consensus basis.

St. Lawrence Vision 2000Advisory Committee advisesAgreement ManagementCommittee.

ZIP Committees (Zonesd’intervention prioritaire)involve communities.

SAGITs report to Minister ofInternational Trade.

(Agriculture SAGIT also reportsto Minister of Agriculture)

Resources

Total 1998–2003budget $239 million,divided almostequally betweenCanada and Quebec.

Members servewithoutremuneration.

DFAIT providessupport.

Duration

Five-yearagreements.

Current agreementruns to 2003.

Original agreementsigned in 1989,renewed in 1994and 1998.

Structure wasestablished in 1986,revised in 1998.

On-going.


11 St. LawrenceAction Plan(SLAP)

12 SectoralAdvisoryGroups onInternationalTrade (SAGITs)

Lesso

ns Le

ar

ned

fro

m Le

ad

ing

Ho

riz

on

ta

l Pr

oje

ct

s6

1


Mandate

TCI providesCanadian companieswith faster, easier,less duplicative andmore comprehensiveaccess to thegovernment’sexport-relatedservices, both withinand outside Canada.

To provide businesspeople in every partof Canada withaccess to accurate,timely and relevantinformation andreferrals.

To reduce thecomplexity ofdealing with variouslevels of governmentby serving as acentral resource forCanadian businessinformation.


TCI is a virtualpartnership of23 federaldepartments andagencies workingclosely with theprovinces and theprivate sector.

Some 37 federalbusinessdepartments; allprovincial andterritorialgovernments;in some cases,businesses,private sectorassociations,academic andresearchcommunities.

Activities

TCI provides exportinformation andassistance toexporters: to enhancetheir capability andpreparedness toexport, through theRegional TradeNetworks in Canada,and to ensure theirexport successabroad, throughDFAIT’s TradeCommissionerService.

Informationproducts, services,publications andexpert referrals tohelp clients getbusinessinformation, (e.g.,business planning,starting a business,finding newmarkets, preparingfor exporting).

CBSCs providecomprehensiveinformation ongovernmentprograms, servicesand regulations.Service accessible bytelephone, Internet(Web and e-mail)and in-personservice location.


TCI is a virtual agencysupported by tradeofficers from its 23 members as well asby a small secretariat,located in IndustryCanada, responsiblefor the developmentof tools andcommunicationsproducts.

P/T and other partnerinvolvement througharrangements such asF/P/T agreements.

One main CBSC perP/T and an extendednetwork of 343 regionalaccess partners.

Federal leaddepartmentdesignated in eachpart of Canada,accountable formanagement of federalinterests and fundingand for arrangementswith other partners.

ACOA in Atlantic, CEDin Quebec and WD inthe West. IndustryCanada for Ontario,NWT, Yukon andNunavut.


A committee of 30 deputyministers on InternationalBusiness Developmentprovides strategic directionsto TCI that are implementedthrough a management board(directors general from23 member departments) andan executive committee ofirectors general from the fivecore departments (DFAIT, IC,NRCan, AAFC and PHC).

Advice is provided by theprovinces and the privatesector through ongoingconsultations and throughtheir participation in theRegional Trade Networks setup in each province andthrough the Trade TeamCanada Sectors system; and byCanadian embassies overseas.TCI publishes an annualbusiness plan as well as anachievement report.

Federal interdepartmentalcommittee at ADM level.

National Secretariat isresponsible for coordination,policies to promote consistentnational operation of thenetwork, informationtechnology, managing federalinformation and coreinformation collection, specialdevelopment projects,coordination of audits andevaluations, and servicequality standards.

Resources

Memberdepartmentscontribute $1.6million in fundingannually to developtools andcommunicationsproducts to promoteTCI to Canadianexporters and toenable officers tobetter prepareCanadian firms toexport. The23 memberdepartments alsoprovide humanresources to supportthe governanceof TCI.

Current budget: $75million over period1998–99 through2003–04.

Industry Canadaprovides support forthe NationalSecretariat.

Duration

TCI was establishedin 1997.

Announced in 1994as part of thefederal Jobs andGrowth Agenda.Established 1994–95.

On-going.


13 TeamCanada Inc

14 NationalSecretariat forthe network ofCanadaBusinessService Centres(CBSC)



Appendix 5: Activities of the Roundtable

The objective of the Roundtable on Horizontal Management was to review initiatives and

research undertaken to date, to identify lessons learned, and to provide practical guidance for

managers on the how and the when of effective horizontal management.

Roundtable Meetings: December 7, 1999, and five meetings in 2000: March 30, May 16, June 20,

October 3, and November 29.

Satellite Events: Events Held Voluntarily in Support of the Roundtable

Policy Event (July 6, 2000) The purpose of this session was to present practical lessons on

horizontal policy management from five case studies: Medium-Term and Transition Planning;

Voluntary Sector (PCO); National Children’s Agenda (HC, HRDC); Geoconnections and NRCan’s

Regional Lens Approach (NRCan); and the Canadian Magazine Policy Case (PCH, DFAIT). This event

was chaired by Margaret Biggs (HRDC) and attended by 19 participants from 13 departments.

National Conference on Regional Involvement in National Policy — A Culture Shift

(September 7, 2000) The purpose of this conference was to discuss ways to improve regional

involvement in policy making. Representatives from 32 government organizations attended with

a total of 100 participants, of which 53 were from the regions). Mel Cappe presented opening

remarks and was followed by three keynote speakers (Michael Decter, Jean-Pierre Gauthier and

Avrim Lazar). In the afternoon, five group discussions took place around policy process, culture,

capacity, accountability, and operational constraints.

Regional Event — Operational Issues Related to Horizontality (September 8, 2000) Jean-Pierre

Gauthier invited members of Quebec Council of Senior Federal Officials to discuss operational

challenges and regional practices related to horizontal issues. A very dynamic discussion took

place between 15 participants from 12 government organizations and ENAP. Three themes

emerged from the discussion: Why work horizontally, values, and systemic issues.

Report on Federal Regional Councils (September 2000) Luc Juillet (Carleton University)

interviewed 20 chairs and executives of federal regional councils to take stock of lessons learned

to date by the councils across Canada. Benefits and challenges faced by the councils are

presented in the report (see Appendix 2).

Horizontality — What Does It Mean at the Working Level? (October 5, 2000) The purpose of this

event was to explore what horizontality means from the perspective of the senior officer and

middle management levels. The event was based on three sessions. The first session focused on

the organization at large: How can senior management best set the stage for working

horizontally? The second concentrated on the daily challenges of horizontal policy development:

What enablers would assist senior officers and middle managers to work on horizontal projects

on a day-to-day basis? The third looked at the personal attributes needed to work horizontally:

What individual knowledge, competencies, and skills should senior officers and middle managers

develop in order to work horizontally. The event was chaired by Liseanne Forand.

Overview Event on Horizontality (October 12, 2000) The purpose of this event was, first, to

investigate how best to communicate the Roundtable’s findings to public servants; second, to

review and provide recommendations on the outline of the Roundtable’s Guidebook for

Managers and, third, to review two documents developed for this event: A Continuous Learning

Plan for Horizontal Management and A Discussion Guide on Building Dialogues on Horizontality.

The event was chaired by Dr. Robert Slater (EC).


Documents

Moving Heroic Horizontal everyday Management